IRLF 


SB    35    fllS 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 
OF 


The  Gradual  Acceptance 


OF  THE 


Copernican  Theory  of  the  Universe 


BY 

DOROTHY     STIMSON,  A.M. 


Submitted  in  Partial  Fulfilment  of  the  Requirements  for  the  Degree  of 

Doctor  of  Philosophy  in  the  Faculty  of  Political 

Science  of  Columbia  University 


HANOVFR,  NEW  HAMPSHIRE 
1917 


REPLACING 


COPYRIGHT  1917  BY  DOROTHY  STIMSON 


57 


TO  MY  FATHER  AND  MOTHER 


',d 


THE  SYSTEMS  OF  THE  WORLD  ix  1651 

ACCORDING  TO  FATHER  RICCIOLI 

(Reduced  facsimile  of  the   frontispiece  in  Riccioli :  Almagcstum  Novum, 

Bologna,   1651.) 


EXPLANATION 

"Astrea,  goddess  of  the  heaven,  wearing  angel's  wings  and  gleaming 
everywhere  with  stars,  stands  at  the  right;  on  the  left  is  Argus  of  the 
hundred  eyes,  not  tense,  but  indicating  by  the  position  of  the  telescope 
at  his  knee  rather  than  at  the  eyes  in  his  head,  that  while  observing  the 
work  of  God's  hand,  he  appears  at  the  same  time  to  be  worshipping  as 
in  genuflexion."  (Riccioli:  Aim.  Nov.,  Pr&fatio,  xvii).  He  points  to 
the  cherubs  in  the  heavens  who  hold  the  planets,  each  with  its  zodiacal 
sign :  above  him  at  the  top  is  Mars,  then  Mercury  in  its  crescent  form, 
the  Sun,  and  Venus  also  in  the  crescent  phase;  on  the  opposite  side  are 
Saturn  in  its  "tripartite"  form  (the  ring  explanation  was  yet  to  be 
given),  the  sphere  of  Jupiter  encircled  by  its  four  satellites,  the  crescent 
Moon,  its  imperfections  clearly  shown,  and  a  comet.  Thus  Father 
Riccioli  summarized  the  astronomical  knowledge  of  his  day.  The  scrolls 
quote  Psalms  19:2,  "Day  unto  day  uttereth  speech  and  night  unto  night 
showeth  knowledge." 

Astrea  holds  in  her  right  hand  a  balance  in  which  Riccioli's  theory  of 
the  universe  (an  adaptation  of  the  Tychonic,  see  p.  68)  far  outweighs 
the  Copernican  or  heliocentric  one.  At  her  feet  is  the  Ptolemaic  sphere, 
while  Ptolemy  himself  half  lies,  half  sits,  between  her  and  Argus,  with 
the  comment  issuing  from  his  mouth:  "I  will  arise  if  only  I  am  cor- 
rected." His  left  hand  rests  upon  the  coat  of  arms  of  the  Prince  of 
Monaco  to  whom  the  Almagestum  Novum  is  dedicated. 

At  the  top  is  the  Hebrew  Yah-Veh,  and  the  hand  of  God  is  stretched 
forth  in  reference  to  the  verse  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom  (10:20)  :  "But 
thou  hast  ordered  all  things  in  measure,  and  number  and  weight." 


CONTENTS 

ILLUSTRATIONS       7 

PREFACE 8 

PART  I.     AN  HISTORICAL  SKETCH  OF  THE  HELIOCENTRIC 

THEORY  OF  THE  UNIVERSE 
Chapter      I.     The      Development      of      Astronomical 

Thought   to    1400:    Preliminary    Review       9 

Chapter     II.     Copernicus  and  his  Times 20 

Chapter  III.     Later    Development    and    Scientific    De- 
fense of  the  Copernican  Theory 33 

PART  II.    THE  RECEPTION  OF  THE  COPERNICAN  THEORY. 

Chapter       I.     Opinions    and    Arguments    in    the    Six- 
teenth  Century    39 

Chapter     II.     Bruno  and   Galileo 49 

Chapter  III.     The  Opposition  and  their  Arguments..     71 

Chapter  IV.     The  Gradual  Acceptance  of  the  Coper- 
nican  Theory    85 

Chapter     V.     The   Church  and  the   New   Astronomy : 

Conclusion    95 

APPENDICES:  TRANSLATIONS  BY  THE  WRITER. 

A.  Ptolemy :   Almagest.     Bk.    I,   chap.    7 :     That   the 
earth  has  no  movement  of  rotation 107 

B.  Copernicus :  De  Revolutionibus,  Dedication  to  the 
Pope    109 

C.  Bodin :    Universes  Natures  Theatrum,   Bk.   V,  sec- 
tions 1  and  2  in  part,  and  section  10  entire 115 

D.  Fienus:   Epistolica    Qucestio:   Is    it   true   that   the 
heavens  are  moved  and  the  earth  is  at  rest? 124 

BIBLIOGRAPHY    130 

INDEX  145 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

Facsimile  of  the  frontispiece  "The  Systems  of  the 
World"  in  Riccioli :  Almagestum  Novum, 
1651  Frontispiece 

Photographic  facsimile  (reduced)  of  a  page  from  a 
copy  of  Copernicus :  De  Revolutionibus,  as 
"corrected"  in  the  17th  century  according  to 
the  directions  of  the  Congregations  of  the 
Index  in  1620 p.  61 

Photographic  facsimile  (reduced)  of  another  "cor- 
rected" page  from  the  same  copy p.  113 


PREFACE 

THIS  study  does  not  belong  in  the  field  of  astronomy,  but  in 
that  of  the  history  of  thought;  for  it  is  an  endeavor  to 
trace  the  changes  in  people's  beliefs  and  conceptions  in  regard 
to  the  universe  as  these  were  wrought  by  the  dissolution  of  su- 
perstition resulting  from  the  scientific  and  rationalist  move- 
ments. The  opening  chapter  is  intended  to  do  no  more  than  to 
review  briefly  the  astronomical  theories  up  to  the  age  of  Coper- 
nicus, in  order  to  provide  a  background  for  the  better  compre- 
hension of  the  work  of  Copernicus  and  its  effects. 

Such  a  study  has  been  rendered  possible  only  by  the  generous 
loan  of  rare  books  by  Professor  Herbert  D.  Foster  of  Dart- 
mouth College,  Professor  Edwin  E.  Slosson  of  Columbia  Uni- 
versity, Doctor  George  A.  Plimpton  and  Major  George  Haven 
Putnam,  both  of  New  York,  and  especially  by  the  kindly  gener- 
osity of  Professor  David  Eugene  Smith  of  Teachers  College 
who  placed  his  unique  collection  of  rare  mathematical  books  at 
the  writer's  disposal  and  gave  her  many  valuable  suggestions 
as  to  available  material.  Professors  James  T.  Shotwell  and 
Harold  Jacoby  of  Columbia  University  have  read  parts  of  this 
study  in  manuscript.  The  writer  gratefully  acknowledges  her 
indebtedness  not  only  to  these  gentlemen,  but  to  the  many  others, 
librarians  and  their  assistants,  fellow-students  and  friends,  too 
numerous  to  mention  individually,  whose  ready  interest  and 
whose  suggestions  have  been  of  real  service,  and  above  all  to 
Professor  James  Harvey  Robinson  at  whose  suggestion  and 
under  whose  guidance  the  work  was  undertaken,  and  to  the 
Reverend  Doctor  Henry  A.  Stimson  whose  advice  and  criticism 
have  been  an  unfailing  source  of  help  and  encouragement. 


PART  ONE 

AN  HISTORICAL  SKETCH  OF  THE  HELIOCENTRIC 
THEORY  OF  THE  UNIVERSE. 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  ASTRONOMICAL  THOUGHT  TO  1400  A.  D. 
A  Preliminary  Sketch  of  Early  Theories  as  a  Background. 

THE  appearances  in  the  heavens  have  from  earliest  historic 
ages  filled  men  with  wonder  and  awe;  then  they  gradually 
became  a  source  of  questioning,  and  thinkers  sought  for  expla- 
nations of  the  daily  and  nightly  phenomena  of  sun,  moon  and 
stars.  Scientific  astronomy,  however,  was  an  impossibility  until 
an  exact  system  of  chronology  was  devised.1  Meanwhile  men 
puzzled  over  the  shape  of  the  earth,  its  position  in  the  universe, 
what  the  stars  were  and  why  the  positions  of  some  shifted,  and 
what  those  fiery  comets  were  that  now  and  again  appeared  and 
struck  terror  to  their  hearts. 

In  answer  to  such  questions,  the  Chaldean  thinkers,  slightly 
before  the  rise  of  the  Greek  schools  of  philosophy,  developed 
the  idea  of  the  seven  heavens  in  their  crystalline  spheres  encir- 
cling the  earth  as  their  center.2  This  conception  seems  to  lie 
back  of  both  the  later  Egyptian  and  Hebraic  cosmologies, 
as  well  as  of  the  Ptolemaic.  Through  the  visits  of  Greek 
philosophers  to  Egyptian  shores  this  conception  helped  to  shape 
Greek  thought  and  so  indirectly  affected  western  civilization. 


lrrhe  earliest  observation  Ptolemy  uses  is  an  Egyptian  one  of  an 
eclipse  occurring  March  21,  721  B.  C.  (Cumont:  7).  [In  these  refer- 
ences, the  Roman  numerals  refer  to  the  volume,  the  Arabic  to  the  page, 
except  as  stated  otherwise.  The  full  title  is  given  in  the  bibliograohy 
at  the  back  under  the  author's  name.] 

2Warren :  40.  See  "Calendar"  in  Hastings :  Ency.  of  Religion  and 
Ethics. 


Thus  our  heritage  in  astronomical  thought,  as  in  many  other 
lines,  comes  from  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans  reaching  Europe 
(in  part  through  Arabia  and  Spain),  where  it  was  shaped  by  the 
influence  of  the  schools  down  to  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages 
when  men  began  anew  to  withstand  authority  in  behalf  of 
observation  and  were  not  afraid  to  follow  whither  their  reason 
led  them. 

But  not  all  Greek  philosophers,  it  seems,1  either  knew  or 
accepted  the  Babylonian  cosmology.-  According  to  Plutarch, 
though  Thales  (640P-546?  B.  C.)  and  later  the  Stoics  believed 
the  earth  to  be  spherical  in  form,  Anaximander  (610—546? 
B.  C.)  thought  it  to  be  like  a  "smooth  stony  pillar,"  Anaximenes 
(6th  cent.)  like  a  "table."  Beginning  with  the  followers  of  Thales 
or  perhaps  Parmenides  (  P-500  B.  C.),  as  Diogenes  Laertius 
claims,3  a  long  line  of  Greek  thinkers  including  Plato  (428P-347? 
B.  C.)  and  Aristotle  (384-322  B.  C.)  placed  the  earth  in  the  cen- 
ter of  the  universe.  Whether  Plato  held  that  the  earth  "encircled" 
or  "clung"  around*  the  axis  is  a  disputed  point  ;4  but  Aristotle 
claimed  it  was  the  fixed  and  immovable  center  around  which 
swung  the  spherical  universe  with  its  heaven  of  fixed  stars  and 
its  seven  concentric  circles  of  the  planets  kept  in  their  places 
by  their  transparent  crystalline  spheres.5 

The  stars  were  an  even  greater  problem.  Anaximenes 
thought  they  were  "fastened  like  nails"  in  a  crystalline  firma- 
ment, and  others  thought  them  to  be  "fiery  plates  of  gold 
resembling  pictures."6  But  if  the  heavens  were  solid,  how  could 
the  brief  presence  of  a  comet  be  explained? 

Among  the  philosophers  were  some  noted  as  mathematicians 
whose  leader  was  Pythagoras  (c.  550  B.  C.).  He  and  at  least  one 

^or  a  summary  of  recent  researches,  see  the  preface  of  Heath : 
Aristarchus  of  Samos.  For  further  details,  see  Heath :  Op.  cit.,  and  the 
writings  of  Kugler  and  Schiaparelli. 

2See  Plutarch:  Moralia:  De  placitas  Philosophorum,  Lib.  I  et  II,  (V, 
264-277,  296-316). 

'Diogenes  Laertius:  De  Vitis,  Lib.  IX,  c.  3   (252). 

*Plato:  Timceus,  sec.  39  (III,  459  in  Jowett's  translation). 

5Aristotle:  De  Mundo,  c.  2  et  6,  (III,  628  and  636). 

'Plutarch  :'<9/>.  cit.,  Lib.  Ill,  c.  2  (V,  303-4). 

10 


of  the  members  of  his  school,  Eudoxus  (409P-356?  B.  C),  had 
visited  Egypt,  according  to  Diogenes  Laertius,1  and  had  in  all 
probability  been  much  interested  in  and  influenced  by  the  astro- 
nomical observations  made  by  the  Egyptian  priests.  On  the  same 
authority,  Pythagoras  was  the  first  to  declare  the  earth  was  round 
and  to  discuss  the  antipodes.  He  too  emphasized  the  beauty  and 
perfection  of  the  circle  and  of  the  sphere  in  geometry,  forms 
which  became  fixed  for  2000  years  as  the  fittest  representations 
of  the  perfection  of  the  heavenly  bodies. 

There  was  some  discussion  in  Diogenes'  time  as  to  the  author 
of  the  theory  of  the  earth's  motion  of  axial  rotation.  Diogenes- 
gives  the  honor  to  Philolaus  (5th  cent.  B.  C.)  one  of  the  Pytha- 
goreans, though  he  adds  that  others  attribute  it  to  Icetas  of 
Syracuse  (6th  or  5th  cent.  B.  C).  Cicero,  however,  states3  the 
position  of  Hicetas  of  Syracuse  as  a  belief  in  the  absolute  fixed- 
ness of  all  the  heavenly  bodies  except  the  earth,  which  alone 
moves  in  the  whole  universe,  and  that  its  rapid  revolutions  upon 
its  own  axis  cause  the  heavens  apparently  to  move  and  the  earth 
to  stand  still. 

Other  thinkers  of  Syracuse  may  also  have  felt  the  Egyptian 
influence;  for  one  of  the  greatest  of  them,  Archimedes  (c.  287- 
212  B.  C),  stated  the  theory  of  the  earth's  revolution  around 
the  sun  as  enunciated  by  Aristarchus  of  Samos.  (Perhaps  this 
is  the  "hearth-fire  of  the  universe"  around  which  Philolaus 
imagined  the  earth  to  whirl.4)  In  Arenarius,  a  curious  study  on 
the  possibility  of  expressing  infinite  sums  by  numerical  denomi- 
nations as  in  counting  the  sands  of  the  universe,  Archimedes 
writes  :5  "For  you  have  known  that  the  universe  is  called  a 
sphere  by  several  astrologers,  its  center  the  center  of  the  earth, 
and  its  radius  equal  to  a  line  drawn  from  the  center  of  the  sun 
to  the  center  of  the  earth.  This  was  written  for  the  unlearned, 
as  you  have  known  from  the  astrologers  .  .  .  .  [Aristarchus  of 


'Diogenes  Laertius:  De  Vitis,  Lib.  VIII,  c.  1,  et  8  (205,  225). 

"Diogenes:  Op.  cit.,  Lib.  VIII,  c.  7,   (225). 

3Cicero:  Academica,  Lib.  II,  c.  39  (322). 

'Plutarch:  Op.  cit.,  Lib.  II   (V.  299-300). 

'Archimedes :  Arenarius,  c.  1.     Delambre :  Astr.  Anc.,  I,  102. 


II 


Samos]1  concludes  that  the  world  is  many  times  greater  than 
the  estimate  we  have  just  given.  He  supposes  that  the  fixed 
stars  and  the  sun  remain  motionless,  but  that  the  earth  following 
a  circular  course,  revolves  around  the  sun  as  a  center,  and  that 
the  sphere  of  the  fixed  stars  having  the  same  sun  as  a  center, 
is  so  vast  that  the  circle  which  he  supposes  the  earth  to  follow 
in  revolving  holds  the  same  ratio  to  the  distance  of  the  fixed 
stars  as  the  center  of  a  sphere  holds  to  its  circumference." 

These  ancient  philosophers  realized  in  some  degree  the 
immensity  of  the  universe  in  which  the  earth  was  but  a  point. 
They  held  that  the  earth  was  an  unsupported  sphere  the  size 
of  which  Eratosthenes  (c.  276-194  B.  C.)  had  calculated 
approximately.  They  knew  the  sun  was  far  larger  than  the 
earth,  and)  Cicero  with  other  thinkers  recognized  the  insignifi- 
cance of  earthly  affairs  in  the  face  of  such  cosmic  immensity. 
They  knew  too  about  the  seven  planets,  had  studied  their 
orbits,  and  worked  out  astronomical  ways  of  measuring  the 
passage  of  time  with  a  fair  amount  of  accuracy.  Hipparchus 
and  other  thinkers  had  discovered  the  fact  of  the  precession  of 
the  equinoxes,  though  there  was  no  adequate  theory  to  account 
for  it  until  Copernicus  formulated  his  ''motion  of  declination." 
The  Pythagoreans  accepted  the  idea  of  the  earth's  turning  upon 
its  axis,  and  some  even  held  the  idea  of  its  revolution  around 
the  motionless  sun.  Others  suggested  that  comets  had  orbits 
which  they  uniformly  followed  and  therefore  their  reappearance 
could  be  anticipated.2 

Why  then  was  the  heliocentric  theory  not  definitely  accepted  ? 

In  the  first  place,  such  a  theory  was  contrary  to  the  supposed 
facts  of  daily  existence.  A  man  did  not  have  to  be  trained  in 
the  schools  to  observe  that  the  earth  seemed  stable  under  his 


is  the  only  account  of  his  system.  Even  the  age  in  which  he 
flourished  is  so  little  known  that  there  have  been  many  disputes 
whether  he  was  the  original  inventor  of  this  system  or  followed  some 
other.  He  was  probably  a  contemporary  of  Cleanthes  the  Stoic  in  the 
3rd  century  B.  C.  He  is  mentioned  also  by  Ptolemy,  Diogenes  Laertius 
and  Vitruvius.  ( Schiaparelli :  Die  Vorlaufcr  des  Copernicus  im  Alter - 
thum,  75.  See  also  Heath:  Op.  cit.) 
2Plutarch:  Op.  cit.;  Bk.  Ill,  c.  2  (V,  317-318). 

12 


feet  and  that  each  morning  the  sun  swept  from  the  east  to  set  at 
night  in  the  west.  Sometimes  it  rose  more  to  the  north  or  to 
the  south  than  at  other  times.  How  could  that  be  explained  if 
the  sun  were  stationary? 

Study  of  the  stars  was  valuable  for  navigators  and  for  sur- 
veyors, perhaps,  but  such  disturbing  theories  should  not  be  pro- 
pounded by  philosophers.  Cleanthes,1  according  to  Plutarch," 
"advised  that  the  Greeks  ought  to  have  prosecuted  Aristarchus 
the  Samian  for  blasphemy  against  religion,  as  shaking  the  very 
foundations  of  the  world,  because  this  man  endeavoring  to  save 
appearances,  supposed  that  the  heavens  remained  immovable 
and  that  the  earth  moved  through  an  oblique  circle,  at  the  same 
time  turning  about  its  own  axis."  Few  would  care  to  face  their 
fellows  as  blasphemers  and  impious  thinkers  on  behalf  of  an 
unsupported  theory.  Eighteen  hundred  years  later  Galileo 
would  not  do  so,  even  though  in  his  day  the  theory  was  by  no 
means  unsupported  by  observation. 

Furthermore,  one  of  the  weaknesses  of  the  Greek  civilization 
militated  strongly  against  the  acceptance  of  this  hypothesis  so 
contrary  to  the  evidence  of  the  senses.  Experimentation  and 
the  development  of  applied  science  was  practically  an  impossi- 
bility where  the  existence  of  slaves  made  manual  labor  degrad-r 
ing  and  shameful.  Men  might  reason  indefinitely;  but  few,  if 
any,  were  willing  to  try  to  improve  the  instruments  of  observa- 
tion or  to  test  their  observations  by  experiments. 

At  the  same  time  another  astronomical  theory  was  developing 
which  was  an  adequate  explanation  for  the  phenomena  observed 
up  to  that  time.3  This  theory  of  epicycles  and  eccentrics  worked 
out  by  Apollonius  of  Perga  (c.  225  B.  C.)  and  by  Hipparchus 
(c.  160  B.  C.)  and  crystallized  for  posterity  in  Ptolemy's  great 
treatise  on  astronomy,  the  Almagest,  (c.  140  A.  D.)  became  the 
fundamental  principle  of  the  science  until  within  the  last  three 
hundred  years.  The  theory  of  the  eccentric  was  based  on  the 
idea  that  heavenly  bodies  following  circular  orbits  revolved 


"The  Stoic  contemporary  of  Aristarchus,  author  of  the  famous  Stoic 
hymn.     See  Diogenes  Laertius :  De  Vitis. 
'Plutarch:  DC  Fade  in  Orbe  Luna:,  (V,  410). 
"Young:   109. 

13 


around  a  center  that  did  not  coincide  with  that  of  the  observer 
on  the  earth.  That  would  explain  why  the  sun  appeared  some- 
times nearer  the  earth  and  sometimes  farther  away.  The  epi- 
cycle represented  the  heavenly  body  as  moving  along  the  cir- 
cumference of  one  circle  (called  the  epicycle)  -the  center  of 
which  moves  on  another  circle  (the  deferent).  With  better 
observations  additional  epicycles  and  eccentric  were  used  to 
represent  the  newly  observed  phenomena  till  in  the  later  Mid- 
dle Ages  the  universe  became  a 

" Sphere 

With  Centric  and  Eccentric  scribbled  o'er, 

Cycle  and  Epicycle,  Orb  in  Orb" — T 

Yet  the  heliocentric  theory  was  not  forgotten.  Vitruvius,  a 
famous  Roman  architect  of  the  Augustan  Age,  discussing  the 
system  of  the  universe,  declared  that  Mercury  and  Venus,  the 
planets  nearest  the  sun,  moved  around  it  as  their  center,  though 
the  earth  was  the  center  of  the  universe.2  This  same  notion 
recurs  in  Martianus  Capella's  book3  in  the  fifth  century  A.  D. 
and  again,  somewhat  modified,  in  the  16th  century  in  Tycho 
Brahe's  conception  of  the  universe. 

Ptolemy  devotes  a  column  or  two  of  his  Almagest*  (to  use 
the  familiar  Arabic  name  for  his  Syntaxis  Mathematical}  to  the 
refutation  of  the  heliocentric  theory,  thereby  preserving  it  for 
later  ages  to  ponder  on  and  for  a  Copernicus  to  develop.  He 
admits  at  the  outset  that  such  a  theory  is  only  tenable  for  the 
stars  and  their  phenomena,  and  he  gives  at  least  three  reasons 
why  it  is  ridiculous.  If  the  earth  were  not  at  the  center,  the 
observed  facts  of  the  seasons'  and  of  day  and  night  would  be 
disturbed  and  even  upset.  If  the  earth  moves,  its  vastly  greater 
mass  would  gain  in  speed  upon  other  bodies,  and  soon  animals 
and  other  lighter  bodies  would  be  left  behind  unsupported  in  the 
air — a  notion  "ridiculous  to  the  last  degree,"  as  he  comments, 
"even  to  imagine  it."  Lastly,  if  it  moves,  it  would  have  such 

Hilton:  Paradise  Lost,  Bk.  VIII,  11.  82-85. 

2Vitruvius:  De  Architeciura,  Lib.  IX,  c.  4  (220). 

"Martianus  Capella:  DC  Nuptiis,  Lib..  VIII,    (668). 

*Ptolemy:  Almagest,  Lib.  I,  c.  7,  (1,  21-25).  Translated  in  Appendix  B. 


tremendous  velocity  that  stones  or  arrows  shot  straight  up  in 
the  air  must  fall  to  the  ground  east  of  their  starting  point, — a 
'laughable  supposition"'  indeed  to  Ptolemy. 

This  book  became  the  great  text  of  the  Middle  Ages;  its 
author's  name  was  given  to  the  geocentric  theory  it  maintained. 
Astronomy  for  a  thousand  years  was  valuable  only  to  deter- 
mine the  time  of  Easter  and  other  festivals  of  the  Church,  and 
to  serve  as  a  basis  for  astrology  for  the  mystery-loving  people 
of  Europe. 

To  the  Arabians  in  Syria  and  in  Spain  belongs  the  credit  of 
preserving  for  Europe  during  this  long  period  the  astronomical 
works  of  the  Greeks,  to  which  they  added  their  own  valuable 
observations  of  the  heavens — valuable  because  made  with 
greater  skill  and  better  instruments,1  and  because  with  these 
observations  later  scientists  could  illustrate  the  permanence  or 
the  variability  of  important  elements.  They  also  discovered  the 
so-called  "trepidation"  or  apparent  shifting  of  the  fixed  stars 
to  explain  which  they  added  another  sphere  to  Ptolemy's  eight. 
Early  in  the  sixth  century  Uranus  translated  Aristotle's  works 
into  Syrian,  and  this  later  was  translated  into  Arabic.2  Alba- 
tegnius3  (c.  850-829  A.  D.),  the  Arabian  prince  who  was  the 
greatest  of  all  their  astronomers,  made  his  observations  from 
Aracte  and  Damascus,  checking  up  and  in  some  cases  amending 
Ptolemy's  results.4 

Then  the  center  of  astronomical  development  shifted  from 
Syria  to  Spain  and  mainly  through  this  channel  passed  on  into 
Western  Europe.  The  scientific  fame  of  Alphonse  X  of  Castile 
(1252-1284  A.  D.)  called  the  Wise,  rests  chiefly  upon  his 
encouragement  of  astronomy.  With  his  support  the  Alfonsine 
Tables  were  calculated.  He  is  said5  to  have  summoned  fifty 
learned  men  from  Toledo,  Cordova  and  Paris  to  translate  into 


'Whewdl:  I,  239. 

2Whewell:  I,  294. 

'Berry:  79. 

*His  book  De  Motu  Stellarum,  translated  into  Latin  by  Plato  Tibur- 
tinus  (fl.1116)  was  published  at  Nuremberg  (1557)  by  Melancthon  with 
annotations  by  Regiomontanus.  Ency.  Brit.  llth.  Edit. 

"Vaughan:  I,  281. 

IS 


Spanish  the  works  of  Ptolemy  and  other  philosophers.  Under 
his  patronage  the  University  of  Salamanca  developed  rapidly  to 
become  within  two  hundred  years  one  of  the  four  great  univer- 
sities of  Europe1 — a  center  for  students  from  all  over  Europe 
and  the  headquarters  for  new  thought,  where  Columbus  was 
sheltered,2  and  later  the  Copernican  system  was  accepted  and 
publicly  taught  at  a  time  when  Galileo's  views  were  suppressed.3 
Popular  interest  in  astronomy  was  evidently  aroused,  for 
Sacrobosco  (to  give  John  Holy  wood4  his  better  known  Latin 
name)  a  Scotch  professor  at  the  Sorbonne  in  Paris  in  the  13th 
century,  published  a  small  treatise  De  Sphceri  Mundo  that  was 
immensely  popular  for  centuries,5  though  is  was  practically  only 
an  abstract  of  the  Almagest.  Whewell6  tells  of  a  French  poem 
of  the  time  of  Edward  I  entitled  Ymage  du  Monde,  which  gave 
the  Ptolemaic  view  and  was  illustrated  in  the  manuscript  in  the 
University  of  Cambridge  with  a  picture  of  the  spherical  earth 
with  men  upright  on  it  at  every  point,  dropping  balls  down  per- 
forations in  the  earth  to  illustrate  the  tendency  of  all  things 
toward  the  center.  Of  the  same  period  (13th  century)  is  an 
Arabian  compilation  in  which  there  is  a  reference  to  another 
work,  the  book  of  Hammarmunah  the  Old,  stating  that  "the 
earth  turns  upon  itself  in  the  form  of  a  circle,  and  that  some  are 
on  top,  the  others  below  .  .  .  and  there  are  countries  in  which 
it  is  constantly  day  or  in  which  at  least  the  night  continues  only 
I  some  instants."7  Apparently,  however,  such  advanced  views 
were  of  no  influence,  and  the  uPtolemaic  theorvj  remained 
unshaken  down  to  the  close  of  the  15th  century. 

Aside  from  the  adequacy  of  this  explanation  of  the  universe 
for  the  times,  the  attitude  of  the  Church  Fathers  on  the  matter 


'Graux:  318 

2Graux:  319. 

'Rashdall:  II,  pt.  I,  77. 

*Dict.  of  Nat.  Biog. 

5MSS.  of  it  are  extremely  numerous.  It  was  the  second  astronomical 
book  to  be  printed,  the  first  edition  appearing  at  Ferrara  in  1472.  65 
editions  appeared  before  1647.  It  was  translated  into  Italian,  French, 
German,  and  Spanish,  and  had  many  commentators.  Diet,  of  Nat.  Biog. 

6Whewell :  I,  277. 

7Blavatski:  II,  29,  note. 

16 


was  to  a  large  degree  responsible  for  this  acquiescence.  Early 
in  the  first  century  A.  D.,  Philo  Judseus1  emphasized  the  minor 
importance  of  visible  objects  compared  with  intellectual  mat- 
ters,— a  foundation  stone  in  the  Church's  theory  of  an  homo- 
centric  universe.  Clement  of  Alexandria  (c.  150  A.  D.)  calls 
the  heavens  solid  since  what  is  solid  is  capable  of  being  per- 
ceived by  the  senses.^  Origen  (c.  185-c.  254.)  has  recourse  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures  to  support  his  notion  that  the  sun,  moon, 
and  stars  are  living  beings  obeying  God's  commands.3  Then 
Lactantius  thunders  against  those  who  discuss  the  universe  as 
comparable  to  people  discussing  "the  character  of  a  city  they 
have  never  seen,  and  whose  name  only  they  know."  "Such  mat- 
ters cannot  be  found  out  by  inquiry."4  The  existence  of  the  an- 
tipodes and  the  rotundity  of  the  earth  are  "marvelous  fictions," 
and  philosophers  are  "defending  one  absurd  opinion  by 
another"5  when  in  explanation  why  bodies  would  not  fall  off  a 
spherical  earth,  they  claim  these  are  borne  to  the  center. 

How  clearly  even  this  brief  review  illustrates  what  Henry 
Osborn  Taylor  calls6  the  fundamental  principles  of  patristic 
faith:  that  the  will  of  God  is  the  one  cause  of  all  things  (volun- 
tate  Dei  immobilis  manet  et  stat  in  sseculum  terra.7  Ambrose : 
Hex&meron.}  and  that  this  will  is  unsearchable.  He  further 
points  out  that  Augustine's  and  Ambrose's  sole  interest  in 
natural  fact  is  as  "confirmatory  evidence  of  Scriptural 
truth."  The  great  Augustine  therefore  denies  the  existence  of 
antipodes  since  they  could  not  be  peopled  by  Adam's  children.8 
He  indifferently  remarks  elsewhere:9  "What  concern  is  it  to 
me  whether  the  heavens  as  a  sphere  enclose  the  earth  in  the 
middle  of  the  world  or  overhang  it  on  either  side?"  Augustine 


Judseus:   Quis  Rerum  Dvvinarum  Hares.     (IV,  7). 
'Clement  of  Alexandria:  Stromatum,  Lib.  V,  c.  14,   (III,  67). 
'Origen:  De  Principiis,  Lib.  I,  c.  7,  (XI,  171). 
'Lactantius:  Divinarum  Institutionum,  Lib.  Ill,  c.  3    (VI,  355). 
'Ibid:  Lib.  Ill,  c.  24,  (VI,  425-428). 
"Taylor :  Medieval  Mind,  I,  74. 

7By  the  will  of  God  the  earth  remains  motionless  and  stands  through- 
out the  age. 

"Augustine:  De  Civitate  Dei,  Lib.  XVI,  c.  9,  (41,  p.  437). 
'Augustine:  De  Genesi,  II,  c.  9,  (v.  34,  p.  270).   (White's  translation). 

17 


does,  however,  dispute  the  claims  of  astrologers  accurately  to 
foretell  the  future  by  the  stars,  since  the  fates  of  twins  or  those 
born  at  the  same  moment  are  so  diverse.1 

Philastrius  (d.  before  397  A.  D.)  dealing  with  various  here- 
sies, denounces  those  who  do  not  believe  the  stars  are  fixed  in 
the  heavens  as  "participants  in  the  vanity  of  pagans  and  the 
foolish  opinions  of  philosophers,"  and  refers  to  the  widespread 
idea  of  the  part  the  angels  play  in  guiding  and  impelling  the 
heavenly  bodies  in  their  courses.2 

|      It  would  take  a  brave  man  to  face  such  attitudes  of  scornful 
1  indifference  on  the  one  hand  and  denunciation  on  the  other,  in 
1  support  of  a  theory  the  Church  considered  heretical. 
±      Meanwhile  the  Church  was  developing  the  homocentric  notion 
which  would,  of  course, jpresuppose  the  central  position  in  the 
universe  for  man's  abiding  plaxe^    In  the  pseudo-Dionysius3  is 
an  elaborately  worked  out  hierarchy  of  the  beings  in  the  uni- 
verse  that  became   the   accepted   plan   of   later   centuries,   best 
known  to  modern  times  through  Dante's  blending  of  it  with  the 
yj^nlemair   thenrvj  in   the   Divine   Comedy*      Isidore   of    Seville 
taught  that  the  universe  was  created  to  serve  man's  purposes,5 
and  Peter  Lombard   (12th  cent.)   sums  up  the  situation  in  the 

1  definite  statement  that  man  was  placed  at  the  center  of  the  uni- 
verse to  be  served  by  that  universe  and  in  turn  himself  to  serve 
God.6  Supported  by  the  mighty  Thomas  Aquinas7  this  became 
a  fundamental  Church  doctrine. 

An  adequate  explanation  of  the  universe  existed.  Aristotle, 
Augustine,  and  the  other  great  authorities  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
all  upheld  the  conception  of  a  central  earth  encircled  by  the 
seven  planetary  spheres  and  by  the  all  embracing  starry  firma- 
ment. In  view  of  the  phrases  used  in  the  Bible  about  the  heav- 

1  Augustine:  Civitate  Dei,  Lib.  V,  c.  5,  (v.  41,  p.  145). 

'Philastrius:  De  Hozresibus,  c.  133,   (v.  12,  p.  1264). 

'Pseudo-Dionysius:  De  Ccelesti  lerarchia,   (v.  122,  p.   10354). 

4Milman:  VIII,  p.  228-9.     See  the  Paradiso. 
.   "Isidore  of   Seville:  De  Ordine  Creaturarum,  c.   5,  sec.  3,  (v.  83,  p.  923). 

"Lombard:  Sententia,  Bk.  II,  Dist.  I,  sec.  8.  (v.  192,  p.  655). 

7Aquinas:  Summa  Theologica,  pt  I,  qu.  70,  art.  2.  (Op.  Om.  Caietani, 
V,  179). 

18 


ens,  and  in  view  of  the  formation  of  fundamental  theological 
doctrines  based  on  this  supposition  by  the  kChurch  Fathers^  is  it 
surprising  that  any  other  than  a  geocentric  theory  seemed 
untenable,  to  be  dismissed  with  a  smile  when  not  denounced  as 
heretical?  Small  wonder  is  it,  in  the  absence  of  the  present  day 
mechanical  devices  for  the  exact  measurement  of  time  and  space 
as  aids  to  observation,  that  the  Ptolemaic,  or  geocentric,  theory 
of  the  universe  endured  through  centuries  as  it  did,  upheld  by 
the  authority  both  of  the  Church  and,  in  essence  at  least,  by  the 
great  philosophers  whose  works  constituted  the  teachings  of  the 
schools. 


CHAPTER    II. 

COPERNICUS  AND  His  TIMES. 

DURING  these  centuries,  one  notable  scholar  at  least  stood 
forth  in  open  hostility  to  the  slavish  devotion  to  Aristotle's 
writings  and  with  hearty  appreciation  for  the  greater  scientific 
accuracy  of  "infidel  philosophers  among  the  Arabians,  Hebrews 
and  Greeks."1  In  his  Opus  Tertium  (1267),  Roger  Bacon  also 
pointed  out  how  inaccurate  were  the  astronomical  tables  used 
by  the  Church,  for  in  1267,  according  to  these  tables  "Christians 
will  fast  the  whole  week  following  the  true  Easter,  and  will  eat 
flesh  instead  of  fasting  at  Quadragesima  for  a  week — which  is 
absurd,"  and  thus  Christians  are  made  foolish  in  the  eyes  of  the 
heathen.2  Even  the  rustic,  he  added,  can  observe  the  phases  of 
the  moon  occurring  a  week  ahead  of  the  date  set  by  the  calen- 
dar.3 Bacon's  protests  were  unheeded,  however,  and  the 
Church  continued  using  the  old  tables  which  grew  increasingly 
inaccurate  with  each  year.  Pope  Sixtus  IV  sought  to  reform 
the  calendar  two  centuries  later  with  the  aid  of  Regiomontanus, 
then  the  greatest  astronomer  in  Europe  (1475)  ;4  the  Lateran 
Council  appealed  to  Copernicus  for  help  (1514),  but  little  could 

I  be  done,  as  Copernicus  replied,  till  the  sun's  and  the  moon's 
positions  had  been  observed  far  more  precisely  ;5  and  the  modern 
scientific  calendar  was  not  adopted  until  1582  under  Pope 
Gregory  XIII. 

What  was  the  state  of  astronomy  in  the  century  of  Coper- 
nicus's  birth?  Regiomontanus — to  use  Johann  Miiller's  Latin 
name — his  teacher  Piirbach,  and  the  great  cardinal  Nicolas  of 
Cues  were  the  leading  astronomers  of  this  fifteenth  century. 


'Roger  Bacon:   Opus  Tertium,  295,  30-31. 

2Ibid:  289. 

3Ibid:  282. 

4Delambre:  Moyen  Age,  365. 

'Prowe:  II,  67-70. 


20 


Piirbach1  (1432-1462)  died  before  he  had  fulfilled  the  promise 
of  his  youth,  leaving  his  Epitome  of  Ptolemy's  Almagest  to  be 
completed  by  his  greater  pupil.  In  his  Theorica  Planetarum 
(1460)  Piirbach  sought  to  explain  the  motions  of  the  planets  by 
placing  each  planet  between  the  walls  of  two  curved  surfaces 
with  just  sufficient  space  in  which  the  planet  could  move.  As 
M.  Delambre  remarked:2  "These  walls  might  aid  the  under- 
standing, but  one  must  suppose  them  transparent ;  and  even  if 
they  guided  the  planet  as  was  their  purpose,  they  hindered  the 
movement  of  the  comets.  Therefore  they  had  to  be  abandoned, 
and  in  our  own  modern  physics  they  are  absolutely  superfluous ; 
they  have  even  been  rather  harmful,  since  they  interfered  with 
the  slight  irregularities  caused  by  the  force  of  attraction  in  plan- 
etary movements  which  observations  have  disclosed."  This 
scheme  gives  some  indication  of  the  elaborate  devices  scholars 
evolved  in  order  to  cope  with  the  increasing  number  of  seeming 
irregularities  observed  in  "the  heavens,"  and  perhaps  it  makes 
clearer  why  Copernicus  was  so  dissatisfied  with  the  astronomical 
hypothesis  of  his  day,  and  longed  for  some  simpler,  more  har- 
monious explanation. 

Regiomontanus3  (1436-1476)  after  Piirbach's  death,  con- 
tinued his  work,  and  his  astronomical  tables  (pub.  1475)  were 
in  general  use  throughout  Europe  till  superseded  by  the  vastly 
more  accurate  Copernican  Tables  a  century  later.  It  has  been 
said4  that  his  fame  inspired  Copernicus  (born  three  years  before 
the  other's  death  in  1476)  to  become  as  great  an  astronomer. 
M.  Delambre  hails  him  as  the  wisest  astronomer  Europe  had 
yet  produced5  and  certainly  his  renown  was  approached  only  by 
that  of  the  great  Cardinal. 


'Delambre:  Moyen  Age,  262-272. 

"Delambre:  Moyen  Age,  272. 

3It  has  been  claimed  that  Regimontanus  knew  of  the  earth's  motion 
around  the  sun  a  hundred  years  before  Copernicus ;  but  a  German 
writer  has  definitely  disproved  this  claim  by  tracing  it  to  its  source  in 
Schoner's  Opusculum  Geographicum  (1553)  which  states  only  that  he 
believed  in  the  earth's  axial  rotation.  Ziegler :  62. 

4Ibid:  62.        5Delambre:  Op.  cit.;  365. 

21 


Both  Janssen,1  the  Catholic  historian,  and  Father  Hageir  of 
j  the  Vatican  Observatory,  together  with  many  other  Catholic 
writers,  claim  that  a  hundred  years  before  Copernicus,  Cardi- 
nal Nicolas  Cusanus3  (c.  1400-1464)  had  the  courage  and  inde- 
pendence to  uphold  the  theory  of  the  earth's  motion  and  its 
rotation  on  its  axis.  As  Father  Hagen  remarked:  "Had  Coper- 
nicus been  aware  of  these  assertions  he  would  probably  have 
been  encouraged  by  them  to  publish  his  own  monumental  work." 
But  the  Cardinal  stated  these  views  of  the  earth's  motions  in  a 
mystical,  hypothetical  way  which  seems  to  justify  the  marginal 
heading  "Paradox"  (in  the  edition  of  1565).4  And  unfor- 
tunately for  these  writers,  the  Jesuit  father,  Riccioli,  the  official 
spokesman  of  that  order  in  the  17th  century  after  Galileo's  con- 
demnation, speaking  of  this  paradox,  called  attention,  also, 
to  a  passage  in  one  of  the  Cardinal's  sermons  as  indicating  that 
the  latter  had  perhaps  "forgotten  himself"  in  the  De  Do  eta 
Ignorantw,  or  that  this  paradox  "was  repugnant  to  him,  or  that 
he  had  thought  better  of  it."5  The  passage  he  referred  to  is  as 
follows :  "Prayer  is  more  powerful  than  all  created  things. 


Janssen :  Hist,  of  Ger.,  I,  5. 

"Cath.  Ency. :   "Cusanus."         3From  Cues  near  Treves. 

4Cusanus:  DC  Docta  Ignorantia,  Bk.  II,  c.  11-12:  "Centrum  igitur 
mundi,  coincideret  cum  circumferentiam,  nam  si  centrum  haberet  et 
circumferentiam,  et  sic  intra  se  haberet  suum  initium  et  finem  et  esset 
ad  aliquid  aliud  ipse  mundus  terminatus,  et  extra  mundum  esset 
aluid  et  locus,  quae  omnia  veritate  carent.  Cum  igitur  non  sit 
possibile,  mundum  claudi  intra  centrum  corporale  et  circumferentiam. 
non  intelligitur  mundus,  cuius  centrum  et  circumferentia  sunt  Deus :  et 
cum  hie  non  sit  mundus  infinitus,  tamen  non  potest  concipi  finitus,  cum 
terminis  careat,  intra  quos  claudatur.  Terra  igitur,  quae  centrum  esse 
nequit,  motu  omni  carere  non  potest,  nam  earn  moveri  taliter  etiam 
necesse  est,  quod  per  infinitum  minus  moveri  posset.  Sicut  igitur  terra 
non  est  centram  mundi.  .  .  .  Unde  licet  terra  quasi  stella  sit,  pro- 
pinquior  polo  centrali,  tamen  movetur,  et  non  describit  minimum  circu- 
lum  in  motu,  ut  est  ostensum.  .  .  .  Terrae  igitur  figura  est  mobilis  et 
sphaerica  et  eius  motus  circularis,  sed  perfectior  esse  posset.  Et  quia 
maximum  in  perfectionibus  motibus,  et  figuris  in  mundo  non  est,  ut  ex 
iam  dictis  patent :  tune  non  est  verum  quod  terra  ista  sit  vilissima  et 
infima,  nam  quamvis  videatur  centralior,  quo'ad  mundum,  est  tamen 
etiam,  eadem  ratione  polo  propinquior.  ut  est  dictum."  (pp.  38-39). 

5Riccioli:  Aim.  Nov.,  II,  292. 
22 


Although  angels,  or  some  kind  of  beings,  move  the  spheres, 
the  Sun  and  the  stars;  prayer  is  more  powerful  than  they 
are,  since  it  impedes  motion,  as  when  the  prayer  of 
Joshua  made  the  Sun  stand  still."1  This  may  explain 
why  Copernicus  apparently  disregarded  the  Cardinal's  par- 
adox, for  he  made  no  reference  to  it  in  his  book ;  and  the 
statement  itself,  to  judge  by  the  absence  of  contemporary  com- 
ment, aroused  no  interest  at  the  time.  But  of  late  years,  the 
Cardinal's  position  as  stated  in  the  De  Docta  Ignorantia  has 
been  repeatedly  cited  as  an  instance  of  the  Church's  friendly 
attitude  toward  scientific  thought,2  to  show  that  Galileo's  con- 
demnation was  due  chiefly  to  his  "contumacy  and  disobedience." 
Copernicus3  himself  was  born  in  Thorn  on  February  19,  1473,4 
seven  years  after  that  Hansa  town  founded  by  the  Teutonic 
Order  in  1231  had  come  under  the  sway  of  the  king  of  Poland 
by  the  Second  Peace  of  Thorn.5  His  father,"  Niklas  Kopper- 
nigk,  was  a  wholesale  merchant  of,  Cracow  who  had  removed 
to  Thorn  before  1458,  married  Barbara  Watzelrode  of  an  old 
patrician  Thorn  family,  and  there  had  served  as  town  councillor 


aCusanus :  Opera,  549 :  Excitationum,  Lib.  VII,  ex  sermone :  Debitores 
sumus:  "Est  enim  oratio,  omnibus  creaturis  potentior.  Nam  angeli  seu 
intelligentiae,  movent  orbes,  Solem  et  Stellas :  sed  oratio  potentior,  quia 
impedit  motum,  sicut  oratio  Josuae,  fecit  sistere  Solem." 

2Di  Bruno.  284,  286a;  Walsh:  An  Early  Allusion,  2-3. 

3Nicolaus  Coppernicus  (Berlin,  1883-4;  3  vol.;  Pt.  I,  Biography,  Pt.  II, 
Sources),  by  Dr.  Leopold  Prowe  gives  an  exhaustive  account  of  all  the 
known  details  in  regard  to  Copernicus  collected  from  earlier  biographers 
and  tested  most  painstakingly  by  the  documentary  evidence  Dr.  Prowe 
and  his  fellow-workers  unearthed  during  a  lifetime  devoted  to  this  sub- 
ject. (Allgemeine  Deutsche  Biographie.)  The  manuscript  authority  Dr. 
Prowe  cites  (Prowe:  I,  19-27  and  foot-notes),  requires  the  double  p  in 
Copernicus's  name,  as  Copernicus  himself  invariably  used  the  two  p's  in 
the  Latinized  form  Coppernic  without  the  termination  us,  and  usually  when 
this  termination  was  added.  Also  official  records  and  the  letters  from  his 
friends  usually  give  the  double  p;  though  the  name  is  found  in  many 
variants — Koppernig,  Copperinck,  etc.  His  signatures  in  his  books,  his 
name  in  the  letter  he  published  in  1509,  and  the  Latin  form  of  it  used 
by  his  friends  all  bear  testimony  to  his  use  of  the  double  p.  But  custom 
has  for  so  many  centuries  sanctioned  the  simpler  spelling,  that  it  seems 
unwise  not  to  conform  in  this  instance  to  the  time-honored  usage. 

4Prowe :  I,  85.        'Ency.  Brit. :  "Thorn."        "Prowe  :  I,  47-53. 

23 


for  nineteen  years  until  his  death  in  1483.'  Thereupon  his 
mother's  brother,  Lucas  Watzelrode,  later  bishop  of  Ermeland, 
became  his  guardian,  benefactor  and  close  friend.2 

After  the  elementary  training  in  the  Thorn  school,"  the  lad 
entered  the  university  at  Cracow,  his  father's  former  home, 
where  he  studied  under  the  faculty  of  arts  from  1491-1494.4 
Nowhere  else  north  of  the  Alps  at  this  time  were  mathematics 
and  astronomy  in  better  standing  than  at  this  university/"1  Six- 
teen teachers  taught  these  subjects  there  during  the  years  of 
Copernicus's  stay,  but  no  record  exists  of  his  work  under  any 
of  them.0  That  he  must  have  studied  these  two  sciences  there, 
however,  is  proved  by  Rheticus's  remark  in  the  Narratio  Priina' 
that  Copernicus,  after  leaving  Cracow,  went  to  Bologna  to  work 
with  Dominicus  Maria  di  Novara  "non  tam  discipulus  quam 
adjutor."  He  left  Cracow  without  receiving  a  degree,8  returned 
to  Thorn  in  1494  when  he  and  his  family  decided  he  should 
enter  the  Church  after  first  studying  in  Italy."  Consequently  he 
crossed  the  Alps  in  1496  and  was  that  winter  matriculated  at 
Bologna  in  the  "German  nation."10  The  following  summer  he 
received  word  of  his  appointment  to  fill  a  vacancy  among  the 
canons  of  the  cathedral  chapter  at  Ermeland  where  his  uncle  had 
been  bishop  since  1489.11.  He  remained  in  Italy,  however,  about 
ten  years  altogether,  studying  civil  law  at  Bologna,  and  canon 
law  and  medicine  at  Padua,12  yet  receiving  his  degree  as  doctor 
of  canon  law  from  the  university  of  Ferrara  in  1503.13  He  was 
also  in  Rome  for  several  months  during  the  Jubilee  year,  1500. 


^These  facts  would  seem  to  justify  the  Poles  today  in  claiming  Coper- 
nicus as  their  fellow-countryman  by  right  of  his  father's  nationality 
and  that  of  his  native  city.  Dr.  Prowe,  however,  claims  him  as  a  "Prus- 
sian" both  because  of  his  long  residence  in  the  Prussian-Polish  bishopric 
of  Ermeland,  and  because  of  Copernicus's  own  reference  to  Prussia  as 
"unser  lieber  Vaterland."  (Prowe:  II,  197.) 

2Prowe:  I,  73-82.       3Ibid:  I,   111.       4Ibid:   I,  124-129.       5Ibid:   I,   137. 

"Ibid:  I,  141-143.         7Rheticus:  Narratio  Prima,  448    (Thorn  edit.). 

8Prowe:  1,  154.        9Ibid :  I,  169.        "Ibid:  I,  174. 

"Ibid:  I,  175.  This  insured  him  an  annual  income  which  amounted  to 
a  sum  equalling  about  $2250  today.  Later  he  received  a  sinecure  appoint- 
ment besides  at  Breslau.  (Holden  in  Pop.  Sci,  111.) 

"Prowe:  I,  224.  "Ibid:  I,  308. 

24 


At  this  period  the  professor  of  astronomy  at  Bologna  was 
the  famous  teacher  Dominicus  Maria  di  Novara  (1454-1504),  a 
man  "ingenio  et  animo  liber"  who  dared  to  attack  the  immuta- 
bility of  the  Ptolemiac  system,  since  his  own  observations,  espe- 
cially of  the  Pole  Star,  differed  by  a  degree  and  more  from  the 
traditional  ones.1  He  dared  to  criticise  the  long  accepted  system 
and  to  emphasize  the  Pythagorean  notion  of  the  underlying  har- 
mony and  simplicity  in  nature2 ;  and  from  him  Copernicus  may 
have  acquired  these  ideas,  for  whether  they  lived  together  or 
not  in  Bologna,  they  were  closely  associated.  It  was  here,  too, 
that  Copernicus  began  his  study  of  Greek  which  later  was  to  be 
the  means3  of  encouraging  him  in  his  own  theorizing  by  ac- 
quainting him  with  the  ancients  who  had  thought  along  similar 
lines. 

In  the  spring  of  the  year  (1501)  following  his  visit  to  Rome,4 
Copernicus  returned  to  the  Chapter  at  Frauenburg  to  get  further 
leave  of  absence  to  study  medicine  at  the  University  of  Padua.5 
Whether  he  received  a  degree  at  Padua  or  not  and  how  long 
he  stayed  there  are  uncertain  points.8  He  was  back  in  Erme- 
land  early  in  1506. 

His  student  days  were  ended.  And  now  for  many  years  he 
led  a  very  active  life,  first  as  companion  and  assistant  to  his 
uncle  the  Bishop,  with  whom  he  stayed  at  Schloss  Heilsberg  till 
after  the  Bishop's  death  in  1512;  then  as  one  of  the  leading 
canons  of  the  chapter  at  Frauenburg,  where  he  lived  most  of 
the  rest  of  his  life.7  As  the  chapter  representative  for  five  years 
(at  intervals)  he  had  oversight  of  the  spiritual  and  temporal 
affairs  of  two  large  districts  in  the  care  of  the  chapter.8  He 
went  on  various  diplomatic  and  other  missions  to  the  King  of 
Poland,9  to  Duke  Albrecht  of  the  Teutonic  Order,10  and  to  the 
councils  of  the  German  states.11  He  wrote  a  paper  of  considera- 


'Ibid :  I,  240  and  note.  Little  is  known  about  him  today,  except  that 
he  was  primarily  an  observer,  and  was  highly  esteemed  by  his  immediate 
successors;  see  Gilbert:  De  Magnete. 

2Clerke  in  Ency.  Brit.,  "Novara."         3Prowe :   I,  249. 

4Prowe :  I,  279.        slbid,  294.        6Ibid :  I,  319. 

7Prowe:  I,  335-380.        "Ibid:  II,  75-110,  116,  124.        9Ibid :  II,  204-8. 

lnlbid:  II,  110.        "Ibid:  II,  144. 

35 


ble  weight  upon  the  much  needed  reform  of  the  Prussian  cur- 
rency.1 His  skill  as  a  physician  was  in  demand  not  only  in  his 
immediate  circle2  but  in  adjoining  countries,  Duke  Albrecht 
once  summoning  him  to  Konigsberg  to  attend  one  of  his 
courtiers.3  He  was  a  humanist  as  well  as  a  Catholic  Church- 
man, and  though  he  did  not  approve  of  the  Protestant  Revolt, 
he  favored  reform  and  toleration.4  Gassendi  claims  that  he  was 
also  a  painter,  at  least  in  his  student  days,  and  that  he  painted 
portraits  well  received  by  his  contemporaries.5  But  his  interest 
and  skill  in  astronomy  must  have  been  recognized  early  in  his 
life  for  in  1514  the  committee  of  the  Lateran  Council  in  charge 
of  the  reform  of  the  calendar  summoned  him  to  their  aid.6 

He  was  no  cloistered  monk  devoting  all  his  time  to  the  study 
of  the  heavens,  but  a  cultivated  man  of  affairs,  of  recognized 
ability  in  business  and  statesmanship,  and  a  leader  among  his 
fellow  canons.  His  mathematical  and  astronomical  pursuits 
were  the  occupations  of  his  somewhat  rare  leisure  moments, 
except  perhaps  during  the  six  years  with  his  uncle  in  the  com- 
parative freedom  of  the  bishop's  castle,  and  during  the  last  ten 
or  twelve  years  of  his  life,  after  his  request  for  a  coadjutor  had 
resulted  in  lightening  his  duties.  In  his  masterwork  De  Revo- 
lutionibus7 there  are  recorded  only  27  of  his  own  astronomical 
observations,  and  these  extend  over  the  years  from  1497  to 
1529.  The  first  was  made  at  Bologna,  the  second  at  Rome  in 
1 500,  and  seven  of  the  others  at  Frauenburg,  where  the  rest  were 
also  probably  made.  It  is  believed  the  greater  part  of  the  De 
Revolutionibus  was  written  at  Heilsburg8  where  Copernicus  was 
free  from  his  chapter  duties,  for  as  he  himself  says9  in  the  Dedi- 
cation to  the  Pope  (dated  1543)  his  work  had  been  formulated 


llbid:  II,  146.        2Ibid:  II,  293-319.        3Ibid:  II,  464-472. 

4Ibid :  II,  170-187.        5Holden  in  Pop.  Sci.,  109. 

•Prowe:  II,  67-70. 

7Copernicus:  De  Revolutionibus,  Thorn  edit,  444.  The  last  two  words 
of  the  full  title:  De  Revolutionibus  Orbium  Coelestium  are  not  on  the 
original  MS.  and  are  believed  to  have  been  added  by  Osiander.  Prowe : 
II,  541,  note. 

8Ibid :  II,  490-1. 

"Copernicus:  Dedication,  4.      (Thorn  edit.) 
26 


not  merely  nine  years  but  for  "more  than  three  nines  of  years." 
It  had  not  been  neglected  all  this  time,  however,  as  the  original 
MS.  (now  in  the  Prague  Library)  with  its  innumerable  changes 
and  corrections  shows  how  continually  he  worked  over  it,  alter- 
ing and  correcting  the  tables  and  verifying  his  statements.1  / 

Copernicus  was  a  philosopher.2  He  thought  out  a  new  expla-  V 
nation  of  the  world  machine  with  relatively  little  practical  work 
of  his  own,3  though  we  know  he  controlled  his  results  by  the  ac- 
cumulated observations  of  the  ages.4  His  instruments  were  in- 
adequate, inaccurate  and  out  of  date  even  in  his  time,  for  much 
better  ones  were  then  being  made  at  Niirnberg5 ;  and  the  cloudy 
climate  of  Ermeland  as  well  as  his  own  active  career  prevented 
him  from  the  long-continued,  painstaking  observing,  which  men 
like  Tycho  Brahe  were  to  carry  on  later.  Despite  such  handi- 
caps, because  of  his  dissatisfaction  with  the  complexities  and 
intricacies  of  the  Ptolemaic  system  andiJDecause  of  his  conviction  , 
that  the  laws  of  nature  were  simple  and  harmonious]  Copernicus  \f 
searched  the  writings  of  the  classic  philosophers,  as  he  himself 
tells  us,6  to  see  what  other  explanation  of  the  universe  had  been 
suggested.  "And  I  found  first  in  Cicero  that  a  certain  Nicetas  had 
thought  the  earth  moved.  Later  in  Plutarch  I  found  certain  oth- 
ers had  been  of  the  same  opinion."  He  quoted  the  Greek  refer- 
ring to  Philolaus  the  Pythagorean,  Heraclides  of  Pontus,  and 
Ecphantes  the  Pythagorean.7  As  a  result  he  began  to  consider 
the  mobility  of  the  earth  and  found  that  such  an  explanation 


'Prowe :  II,  503-508.        2Ibid :  II,  64.        3Ibid  :  II,  58-9. 

4Rheticus :  Narratio  Prima. 

5Prowe:  II,  56. 

"Copernicus :  Dedication,  5-6.     See  Appendix  B. 

'For  a  translation  of  this  dedication  in  full,  see  Appendix  B. 

In  the  original  MS.  occurs  a  reference  (struck  out)  to  Aristarchus  of 
Samos  as  holding  the  theory  of  the  earth's  motion.  (Prowe:  II,  507, 
note.)  The  finding  of  this  passage  proves  that  Copernicus  had  at  least 
heard  of  Aristarchus,  but  his  apparent  indifference  is  the  more  strange 
since  an  account  of  his  teaching  occurs  in  the  same  book  of  Plutarch 
from  which  Copernicus  learned  about  Philolaus.  But  the  chief  source 
of  our  knowledge  about  Aristarchus  is  through  Archimedes,  and  the 
editio  princeps  of  his  works  did  not  appear  till  1544,  a  year  after  the 
death  of  Copernicus.  C.  R.  Eastman  in  Pop.  Sci.  68:325. 

27 


seemingly  solved  many  astronomical  problems  with  a  simplicity 
and  a  harmony  utterly  lacking  in  the  old  traditional  scheme. 
Unaided  by  a  telescope,  he  worked  out  in  part  the  right  theory 
of  the  universe  and  for  the  first  time  in  history  placed  all  the 
then  known  planets  in  their  true  positions  with  the  sun  at  the 
center.  He  claimed  that  the  earth  turns  on  its  axis  as  it  travels 
around  the  sun,  and  careens  slowly  as  it  goes,  thus  by  these 
three  motions  explaining  many  of  the  apparent  movements  of 
the  sun  and  the  planets.  He  retained,1  however,  the  immobile 
heaven  of  the  fixed  stars  (though  vastly  farther  off  in  order 
to  account  for  the  non-observance  of  any  stellar  parallax2),  the 
"perfect"  and  therefore  circular  orbits  of  the  planets,  certain  of 
the  old  eccentrics,  and  34  new  epicycles  in  place  of  all  the  old 
ones  which  he  had  cast  aside.3  He  accepted  the  false  notion 
of  trepidation  enunciated  by  the  Arabs  in  the  9th  century  and 
later  overthrown  by  Tycho  Brahe.4  His  calculations  were  weak/"' 
But  his  great  book  is  a  sane  and  modern  work  in  an  age  of  as- 
trology and  superstition.6  His  theory  is  a  triumph  of  reason  and 
imagination  and  with  its  almost  complete  independence  of 
authority  is  perhaps  as  original  a  work  as  an  human  being 
may  be  expected  to  produce. 

Copernicus  was  extremely  reluctant  to  publish  his  book  be- 
cause of  the  misunderstandings  and  malicious  attacks  it  would 
unquestionably  arouse.7  Possibly,  too,  he  was  thinking  of  the 
hostility  already  existing  between  himself  and  his  Bishop,  Dan- 
tiscus,8  whim  he  did  not  wish  to  antagonize  further.  But  his 


^elambre:  Astr.  Mod.  pp.  xi-xii. 

"As  the  earth  moves,  the  position  in  the  heavens  of  a  fixed  star  seen 
from  the  earth  should  differ  slightly  from  its  position  observed  six 
months  later  when  the  earth  is  on  the  opposite  side  of  its  orbit.  The  dis- 
tance to  the  fixed  stars  is  so  vast,  however,  that  this  final  proof  of  the 
earth's  motion  was  not  attained  till  1838  when  Bessel  (1784-1846)  ob- 
served stellar  parallax  from  Konigsberg.  Berry:  123-24. 

3C 'ommentariolus  in   Prowe :   III,  202. 

4Holden  in  Pop.  Sci.,  117. 

5Delambre :  Astr.  Mod.,  p.  xi. 

"Snyder:  165. 

'Copernicus:   Dedication,  3. 

"Prowe:    II,  362-7. 

28 


devoted  pupil  and  friend,  Rheticus,  aided  by  Tiedeman  Giese, 
Bishop  of  Culm  and  a  lifelong  friend,  at  length  (1542)  per- 
suaded him.1  So  he  entrusted  the  matter  to  Giese  who  passed 
it  on  to  Rheticus,  then  connected  with  the  University  at  Witten- 
berg as  professor  of  mathematics.2  Rheticus,  securing  leave 
of  absence  from  Melancthon  his  superior,  went  to  Niirnberg  to 
supervise  the  printing.3  This  was  done  by  Petrejus.  Upon  his 
return  to  Wittenberg,  Rheticus  left  in  charge  Johann  Schoner,  a 
famous  mathematician  and  astronomer,  and  Andreas  Osiander, 
a  Lutheran  preacher  interested  in  astronomy.  The  printed  book1 
was  placed  in  Copernicus's  hands  at  Frauenburg  on  May  24th, 
1543,  as  he  lay  dying  of  paralysis.5 

Copernicus  passed  away  that  day  in  ignorance  that  his  life's  ix^ 
work  appeared  before  the  world  not  as  a  truth  but  as  an  hypoth- 
esis ;  for  there  had  been  inserted  an  anonymous  preface  "ad  lec- 
torem  de  hypothesibus  huius  opera"  stating  this  was  but  another  & 
hypothesis  for  the  greater  convenience  of  astronomers.15  "Neque 
enim  necesse  est  eas  hypotheses  esse  veras,  imo  ne  verisimiles 
quidem,  sed  sufficit  hoc  unum,  si  calculum  observationibus  con- 
gruentem  exhibeant."7 — For  years  Copernicus  was  thought  to 
have  written  this  preface  to  disarm  criticism.  Kepler  sixty 
years  later  (1601)  called  attention  to  this  error,8  and  quoted 
Osiander's  letters  to  Copernicus  and  to  Rheticus  of  May,  1541, 
suggesting  that  the  system  be  called  an  hypothesis  to  avert  at- 
tacks by  theologians  and  Aristotelians.  He  claimed  that  Osian- 
der had  written  the  preface ;  but  Kepler's  article  never  was 


'Ibid:  II,  406.         'Ibid:  II,  501.         3Ibid:  II,  517-20. 

4Four  other  editions  have  since  appeared ;  at  Basel,  1566,  Amsterdam 
1617,  Warsaw  1847,  and  Thorn  1873.  For  further  details,  see  Prowe:  II, 
543-7,  and  Thorn  edition  pp.  xii-xx.  The  edition  cited  in  this  study 
is  the  Thorn  one  of  1873. 

5Prowe:  II,  553-4. 

"Copernicus :  De  Revolutionibus ,  I.  "To  the  reader  on  the  hypotheses 
of  this  book." 

7"For  it  is  not  necessary  that  these  hypotheses  be  true,  nor  even  prob- 
able, but  this  alone  is  sufficient,  if  they  show  reasoning  fitting  the  obser- 
vations." 

"Kepler:  Apologia  Tychonis  contra  Ursum  in  Op.  Ow.:  I,  244-246. 

29 


finished  and  remained  unpublished  till  1858.1  Giese  and  Rhe- 
ticus  of  course  knew  that  the  preface  falsified  Copernicus's 
work,  and  Giese,  highly  indignant  at  the  "impiety"  of  the  printer 
(who  he  thought  had  written  it  to  save  himself  from  blame) 
wrote  Rheticus  urging  him  to  write  another  "praefatiunculus" 
purging  the  book  of  this  falsehood.2  This  letter  is  dated  July  26, 
1543,  and  the  book  had  appeared  in  April.  Apparently  nothing 
was  done  and  the  preface  was  accepted  without  further  chal- 
lenge. 

It  remains  to  ask  whether  people  other  than  Copernicus's  inti- 
mates had  known  of  his  theory  before  1543.  Peucer,  Melanc- 
thon's  nephew,  declared  Copernicus  was  famous  by  1525,?<  and 
the  invitation  from  the  Lateran  Council  committee  indicates  his 
renown  as  early  as  1514.  In  Vienna  in  18734  there  was  found  a 
Comment ariolus,  or  summary  of  his  great  work,5  written  by 
Copernicus  for  the  scholars  friendly  to  him.  It  was  probably 
written  soon  after  1530,  and  gives  a  full  statement  of  his  views 
following  a  series  of  seven  axioms  or  theses  summing  up  the 
new  theory.  This  little  book  probably  occasioned  the  order  from 
Pope  Clement  VII  in  1533  to  Widmanstadt  to  report  to  him  on 
the  new  scheme.6  This  Widmanstadt  did  in  the  papal  gardens 
before  the  Pope  with  several  of  the  cardinals  and  bishops,  and 
was  presented  with  a  book  as  his  reward. 

In  1536,  the  Cardinal  Bishop  of  Capua,  Nicolas  con  Schon- 
berg,  apparently  with  the  intent  to  pave  the  way  for  the  theory 
at  Rome,  wrote  for  a  report  of  it.7  It  is  not  known  whether  the 
report  was  sent,  and  the  cardinal  died  the  following  year.  But 
that  Copernicus  was  pleased  by  this  recognition  is  evident  from 
the  prominence  he  gave  to  the  cardinal's  letter,  as  he  printed 
it  in  his  book  at  the  beginning,  even  before  the  dedication  to  the 
Pope. 

'Prowe :  II,  251,  note.        2Ibid :  II,  537-9. 

3Ibid:  II,  273.        4Ibid:  II,  286-7. 

5A  second  copy  was  found  at  Upsala  shortly  afterwards,  though  for 
centuries  its  existence  was  unknown  save  for  two  slight  references  to 
such  a  book,  one  by  Gemma  Frisius,  the  other  by  Tycho  Brahe.  Prowe : 
II,  284. 

6Ibid:   II,  273-4. 

7Prowe:  II,  274,  note. 
30 


The  most  widely  circulated  account  at  this  time,  however, 
was  the  Narratio  Prima,  a  letter  from  Georg  Joachim  of 
Rhaetia  (better  known  as  Rheticus),  written  in  October,  1539, 
from  Frauenburg  to  Johann  Schoner  at  Nurnberg.1  Rheticus," 
at  twenty-five  years  of  age  professor  of  mathematics  at  Witten- 
berg, had  gone  uninvited  to  Frauenburg  early  that  summer  to 
visit  Copernicus  and  learn  for  himself  more  in  detail  about  this 
new  system.  This  was  rather  a  daring  undertaking,  for  not 
v  only  were  Luther  and  Melancthon  outspoken  in  their  condemna- 
tion of  Copernicus,  but  Rheticus  was  going  from  Wittenberg, 
the  headquarters  of  the  Lutheran  heresy,  into  the  bishopric  of 
Ermeland  where  to  the  Bishop  and  the  King  his  overlord,  the 
very  name  of  Luther  was  anathema.  Nothing  daunted,  Rheticus 
departed  for  Frauenberg  and  could  not  speak  too  highly  of  the 
cordial  welcome  he  received  from  the  old  astronomer.  He  came 
for  a  few  weeks,  and  remained  two  years  to  return  to  Witten- 
berg as  an  avowed  believer  in  the  system  and  its  first  teacher 
and  promulgator.  Not  only  did  he  write  the  Narratio  Prima 
and  an  Encomium  Borussce,  both  extolling  Copernicus,  but  what 
is  more  important,  he  succeeded  in  persuading  him  to  allow  the 
publication  of  the  De  Revolutionibus.  Rheticus  returned  to  his 
post  in  1541,  to  resign  it  the  next  year  and  become  Dean  of  the 
Faculty  of  Arts.  In  all  probability  the  conflict  was  too  intense 
between  his  new  scientific  beliefs  and  the  statements  required  of 
him  as  professor  of  the  old  mathematics  and  astronomy. 

His  colleague,  Erasmus  Reinhold,  continued  to  teach  astron- 
omy there,  though  he,  too,  accepted  the  Copernican  system.3 
He  published  a  series  of  tables  (Tabula  Pruteniccc,  1551)  based 
on  the  Copernican  calculations  to  supersede  the  inaccurate  ones 
by  Regiomontanus ;  and  these  were  in  general  use  throughout 
Europe  for  the  next  seventy-odd  years.  As  he  himself 
declared,  the  series  was  based  in  its  principles  and  fundamentals 
upon  the  observations  of  the  famous  Nicolaus  Copernicus.  The 
almanacs  deduced  from  these  calculations  probably  did  more  to 

'Prowe :  II,  426-440. 
2Ibid:  II,  387-405. 
3Ibid:  II,  391. 

31 


bring    the    new    system    into    general    recognition    and    gradual 
acceptance  than  did  the  theoretical  works.1 

Opposition  to  the  theory  had  not  yet  gathered  serious  head- 
way. There  is  record2  of  a  play  poking  fun  at  the  system  and 
its  originator,  written  by  the  Elbing  schoolmaster  (a  Dutch 
refugee  from  the  Inquisition)  and  given  in  1531  by  the  villagers 
at  Elbing  (3  miles  from  Frauenburg).  Elbing  and  Ermeland 
were  hostile  to  each  other,  Copernicus  was  well  known  in  Elbing 
though  probably  from  afar,  for  there  seems  to  have  been  almost 
no  personal  intercourse  between  canons  and  people,  and  the 
spread  of  Luther's  teachings  had  intensified  the  hostility  of  the 
villagers  towards  the  Church  and  its  representatives.  But  not 
until  Giordano  Bruno  made  the  Copernican  system  the  starting- 
point  of  his  philosophy  was  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  seriously 
aroused  to  combat  it.  Possibly  Osiander's  preface  turned  oppo- 
sition aside,  and  certainly  the  non-acceptance  of  the  system  as  a 
whole  by  Tycho  Brahe,  the  leading  astronomer  of  Europe  at 
that  time,  made  people  slow  to  consider  it. 


'Holden  in  Pop.  Sci.,  119. 
2Prowe:  II,  233-244. 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE  LATER   DEVELOPMENT  AND  SCIENTIFIC   DEFENSE  OF   THE 
COPERNICAN  SYSTEM. 

COPERNICUS  accomplished  much,  but  even  his  genius  could 
not  far  outrun  the  times  in  which  he  lived.  When  one  real- 
izes that  not  only  all  the  astronomers  before  him,  but  he  and  his 
immediate  successor,  Tycho  Brahe,  made  all  their  observations 
and  calculations  unaided  by  even  the  simplest  telescope,  by  loga- 
rithms or  by  pendulum  clocks  for  accurate  measurement  of 
time,1  one  marvels  not  at  their  errors,  but  at  the  greatness  of 
their  genius  in  rising  above  such  difficulties.  This  lack  of  mate- 
rial aids  makes  the  work  of  Tycho  Brahe,2  accounted  one  of  the 
greatest  observers  that  has  ever  lived,3  as  notable  in  its  way  per- 
haps as  that  of  Copernicus. 

His  life4  was  a  somewhat  romantic  one.  Born  of  noble  family 
on  December  14th,  1546,  at  Knudstrup  in  Denmark,  Tyge 
Brahe,  the  second  of  ten  children,5  was  early  practically  adopted 
by  his  father's  brother.  His  family  wished  him  to  become  a 
statesman  and  sent  him  in  1559  to  the  university  at  Copenhagen 
to  prepare  for  that  career.  A  partial  eclipse  of  the  sun  on 
August  21st,  1560  as  foretold  by  the  astronomers  thrilled  the 
lad  and  determined  him  to  study  a  science  that  could  foretell 
the  future  and  so  affect  men's  lives.6  When  he  was  sent  to 
Leipsic  with  a  tutor  in  1562  to  study  law,  he  devoted  his  time 


'Burckhardt:  8. 

'The  two  standard  lives  of  Tycho  Brahe  are  the  Vita  Tychonis  Brahei 
by  Gassendi  (1655)  till  recently  the  sole  source  of  information,  and 
Dreyer's  Tycho  Brake  (1890)  based  not  only  on  Gassendi  but  on  the 
documentary  evidence  disclosed  by  the  researches  of  the  19th  century. 
For  Tycho's  works  I  have  used  the  Opera  Omnia  published  at  Frank- 
fort in  1648.  The  Danish  Royal  Scientific  Society  has  issued  a  reprint 
(1901)  of  the  rare  1573  edition  of  the  De  Nova  Stella. 

'Bridges:  206.  "Dreyer:  11-84. 

'Gassendi:  2.  "Dreyer:  13. 

33 


and  money  to  the  study  of  mathematics  and  astronomy.  Two 
years  later  when  eighteen  years  of  age,  he  resolved  to  perform 
anew  the  task  of  Hipparchos  and  Ptolemy  and  make  a  catalogue 
of  the  stars  more  accurate  than  their 's.  His  family  hotly 
opposed  these  plans ;  and  for  six  years  he  wandered  through  the 
German  states,  now  at  Wittenberg,  now  at  Rostock  (where  he 
fought  the  duel  in  which  he  lost  part  of  his  nose  and  had  to 
have  it  replaced  by  one  of  gold  and  silver)1  or  at  Augsburg — 
everywhere  working  on  his  chosen  subjects.  But  upon  his 
return  to  Denmark  (1570)  he  spent  two  years  on  chemistry  and 
medicine,  till  the  startling  appearance  of  the  New  Star  in  the 
constellation  of  Cassiopaea  (November,  1572)  recalled  him  to 
what  became  his  life  work.2 

Through  the  interest  and  favor  of  King  Frederick  II,  he  was 
given  the  island  of  Hveen  near  Elsinore,  with  money  to  build 
an  observatory  and  the  pledge  of  an  annual  income  from  the 
state  treasury  for  his  support.3  There  at  Uraniborg  from  1576 
to  1597  he  and  his  pupils  made  the  great  catalogue  of  the  stars, 
and  studied  comets  and  the  moon.  When  he  was  forced  to  leave 
Hveen  by  the  hostility  and  the  economical  tendencies  of  the 
young  king,4  after  two  years  of  wandering  he  accepted  the  invi- 
tation of  the  Emperor  Rudolphus  and  established  himself  at 
Prague  in  Bohemia.  Among  his  assistants  at  Prague  was  young 
Johann  Kepler  who  till  Tycho's  death  (on  October  24,  1601) 
was  his  chief  helper  for  twenty  months,  and  who  afterwards 
completed  his  observations,  publishing  the  results  in  the  Rudol- 
phine  Tables  of  1627. 

This  "Phoenix  among  Astronomers" — as  Kepler  calls  him,5 — 
was  the  father  of  modern  practical  astronomy.8  He  also  pro- 
pounded a  third  system  of  the  universe,  a  compromise  between 
the  Ptolemaic  and  the  Copernican.  In  this  the  Tychonic  sys- 
tem,7 the  earth  is  motionless  and  is  the  center  of  the  orbits  of 
the  sun,  the  moon,  and  the  sphere  of  the  fixed  stars,  while  the 


"Gassendi:  9-10. 

2Dreyer :  38-44.  8Ibid  :  84.  4Ibid :  234-5. 

"Kepler:  Tabula  Rudolphina.     Title  page. 

"Dreyer:  317-363. 

TAs  stated  in  his  Book  on  the  Comet  of  1577  (pub.  1588). 

34 


sun  is  the  center  of  the  orbits  of  the  five  planets.1  Mercury  and 
Venus  move  in  orbits  with  radii  shorter  than  the  sun's  radius, 
and  the  other  three  planets  include  the  earth  within  their  cir- 
cuits. This  system  was  in  harmony  with  the  Bible  and 
accounted  as  satisfactorily  by  geometry  as  either  of  the  other 
two  systems  for  the  observed  phenomena.-  To  Tycho  Brahe, 
the  Ptolemaic  system  was  too  complex,3  and  the  Copernican 
absurd,  the  latter  because  to  account  for  the  absence  of  stellar 
parallax  it  left  vacant  and  purposeless  a  vast  space  between 
Saturn  and  the  sphere  of  the  fixed  stars,4  and  because  Tycho's 
observations  did  not  show  any  trace  of  the  stellar  parallax  that 
must  exist  if  the  earth  moves.5 

Though  Tycho  thus  rejected  the  Copernican  theory,  his  own 
proved  to  be  the  stepping  stone  toward  the  one  he  rejected,0  for 
by  it  and  by  his  study  of  comets  he  completely  destroyed  the 
ideas  of  solid  crystalline  spheres  to  the  discredit  of  the  scholas- 
tics ;  and  his  promulgation  of,  a  third  theory  of  the  universe 
helped  to  diminish  men's  confidence  in  authority  and  to  stimu- 
late independent  thinking. 

Copernicus  worked  out  his  system  by  mathematics  with  but 
slight  aid  from  his  own  observations.  It  was  a  theory  not  yet 
proven  true.  Tycho  Brahe,  though  denying  its  validity,  con- 
tributed in  his  mass  of  painstaking,  accurate  observations  the 
raw  material  of  facts  to  be  worked  up  by  Kepler  into  the  great 
laws  of  the  planets  attesting  the  fundamental  truth  of  the 
Copernican  hypothesis. 

Johann  Kepler7  earned  for  himself  the  proud  title  of  "law- 
maker for  the  universe"  in  defiance  of  his  handicaps  of  ill- 
health,  family  troubles,  and  straitened  finances.  Born  in  Weil, 
Wurtemberg,  (December  27.  1571)  of  noble  but  indigent  par- 
greyer:  168-9. 

3Schiaparelli  in  Snyder :  165. 

3Brahe :  Op.  Om.,  pt.  I,  p.  337.        "Ibid :  409-410. 

5The  Tychonic  system  has  supporters  to  this  day.     See  chap.  viii. 

"Dreyer:  181. 

7The  authoritative  biography  is  the  Vita  by  Frisch  in  vol.  VIII,  pp. 
668-1028  of  Op.  Om.  Kep. 

"Frisch :  VIII,  718. 

35 


ents,  he  was  a  sickly  child  unable  for  years  to  attend  school 
regularly.  He  finally  left  the  monastary  school  in  Mulifontane 
in  1586  and  entered  the  university  at  Tubingen  to  stay  for  four 
and  a  half  years.  There  he  studied  philosophy,  mathematics, 
and  theology  (he  was  a  Lutheran)  receiving  the  degree  of  Mas- 
ter of  Arts  in  1591.  While  at  the  university  he  studied  under 
Msestlin,  professor  of  mathematics  and  astronomy,  and  a 
believer  in  the  Copernican  theory.  Because  of  Maestlin's  teach- 
ing Kepler  developed  into  a  confirmed  and  enthusiastic  adherent 
to  the  new  doctrine. 

In  1594  he  reluctantly  abandoned  his  favorite  study,  philoso- 
phy, and  accepted  a  professorship  in  mathematics  at  Graetz  in 
Styria.  Two  years  later  he  published  his  first  work :  Prodromus 
Dissertationum  continent  mysterium  cosmographicum  etc. 
(1596)  in  which  he  sought  to  prove  that  th6  Creator  in  arrang- 
ing the  universe  had  thought  of  the  five  regular  bodies  which 
can  be  inscribed  in  a  sphere  according  to  which  He  had  regu- 
lated the  order,  the  number  and  the  proportions  of  the  heavens 
and  their  movements.1  The  book  is  important  not  only  because 
of  its  novelty,  but  because  it  gave  the  Copernican  doctrine  public 
explanation  and  defense.2  Kepler  himself  valued  it  enough  to 
reprint  it  with  his  Harmonia  Mundi  twenty-five  years  later, 
And  it  won  for  him  appreciative  letters  from  various  scientists, 
notably  from  Tycho  Brahe  and  Galileo.3 

As  Kepler,  a  Lutheran,  was  having  difficulties  in  Graetz,  a 
Catholic  city,  he  finally  accepted  Tycho's  urgent  invitation  to 
come  to  Prague.4  He  came  early  in  1600,  and  after  some 
adjustments  had  been  made  between  the  two,5  he  and  his  family 
settled  with  Tycho  that  autumn  to  remain  till  the  latter's  death 
the  following  November.  Kepler  himself  then  held  the  office 
of  imperial  mathematician  by  appointment  for  many  years  there- 
after.6 

With  the  researches  of  Tycho's  lifetime  placed  at  his  disposal, 
Kepler  worked  out  two  of  his  three  great  planetary  laws  from 


'Delambre:  Astr.  Mod.  314-315. 

2Frisch:  VIII,  999.  'Ibid:  VIII,  696.  "Ibid:  VIII,  699-715. 

5Dreyer:  290-309.  6Frisch :   VIII,  715. 

36 


Tycho's  observations  of  the  planet  Mars.  Yet,  as  M.  Bertrand 
remarks,1  it  was  well  for  Kepler  that  his  material  was  not  too  ac- 
curate or  its  variations  (due  to  the  then  unmeasured  force  of  at- 
traction) might  have  hindered  him  from  proving  his  laws;  and 
luckily  for  him  the  earth's  orbit  is  so  nearly  circular  that  in 
calculating  the  orbit  of  Mars  to  prove  its  elliptical  form,  he 
could  base  his  work  on  the  earth's  orbit  as  a  circle  without 
vitiating  his  results  for  Mars.2  That  a  planet's  orbit  is  an  ellipse 
and  not  the  perfect  circle  was  of  course  a  triumph  for  the  new 
science  over  the  scholastics  and  Aristotelians.  But  they  had 
yet  to  learn  what  held  the  planets  in  their  courses. 

From  Kepler's  student  days  under  Maestlin  when  as  the  sub- 
ject of  his  disputation  he  upheld  the  Copernican  theory,  to  his 
death  in  1630,  he  was  a  staunch  supporter  of  the  new  teaching.* 
In  his  Epitome  Astronomies  Copernicana?  (1616)  he  answered 
objections  to  it  at  length.*  He  took  infinite  pains  to  convert 
his  friends  to  the  new  system.  It  was  in  vain  that  Tycho  on  his 
deathbed  had  urged  Kepler  to  carry  on  their  work  not  on  the 
Copernican  but  on  the  Tychonic  scheme.5 

Kepler  had  reasoned  out  according  to  physics  the  laws  by 
which  the  planets  moved.6  In  Italy  at  this  same  time  Galileo 
with  his  optic  tube  (invented  1609)  was  demonstrating  that 
Venus  had  phases  even  as  Copernicus  had  declared,  that  Jupiter 
had  satellites,  and  that  the  moon  was  scarred  and  roughened — 
ocular  proof  that  the  old  system  with  its  heavenly  perfection  in 
number  (7  planets)  and  in  appearance  must  be  cast  aside.  With- 
in a  year  after  Galileo's  death  Newton  was  born7  (January  4, 
1643).  His  demonstration  of  the  universal  application  of  the 
law  of  gravitation  (1687)  was  perhaps  the  climax  in  the  devel- 


*Bertrand:  p.  870-1. 

2The  two  laws  first  appeared  in  1609  in  his  Physica  Coelestis  tradita 
commentarius  de  motu  stella  martis.  (Frisch:  VIII,  964.)  The  third 
he  enunciated  in  his  Harmonia  Mundi,  1619.  (Ibid:  VIII,  1013-1017.) 

3"Cor  et  animam  meam":  Kepler's  expression  in  regard  to  the  Coper- 
nician  theory.  Ibid:  VIII,  957. 

4Ibid:  VIII,  838.  5Ibid:  VIII,  742. 

"Kepler:  Op.  Om.;  I,  106:  Prafatio  ad  Lectorem. 

7Berry:  210. 

37 


opment  of  the  Copernican  system.  Complete  and  final  proof 
was  adding  in  the  succeeding  years  by  Roemer's  (1644-1710) 
discovery  of  the  velocity  of  light,  by  Bradley's  (1693-1762) 
study  of  its  aberration,1  by  Bessel's  discovery  of  stellar  paral- 
lax in  1838,2  and  by  Foucault's  experimental  demonstration  of 
the  earth's  axial  motion  with  a  pendulum  in  185 1.3 


^erry:  265.        2Ibid:  359. 
3Jacoby:  89. 


PART  TWO 

THE  RECEPTION  OF  THE  COPERNICAN  THEORY. 

CHAPTER    I. 
OPINIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS  IN  THE  SIXTEENTH  CENTURY. 

DURING  the  life-time  of  Copernicus,  Roman  Catholic 
churchmen  had  been  interested  in  his  work:  Cardinal 
Schonberg  wrote  for  full  information,  Widmanstadt  reported 
on  it  to  Pope  Clement  VII  and  Copernicus  had  dedicated  his 
book  to  Pope  Paul  III.1  But  after  his  death,  the  Church 
authorities  apparently  paid  little  heed  to  his  theory  until  some 
fifty  years  later  when  Giordano  Bruno  forced  it  upon  their  ••  • 
attention  in  his  philosophical  teachings.  Osiander's  preface  had 
probably  blinded  their  eyes  to  its  implications. 

The  Protestant  leaders  were  not  quite  so  urbane  in  their  atti- 
tude. While  Copernicus  was  still  alive,  Luther  is  reported2  to 
have  referred  to  this  "new  astrologer"  who  sought  to  prove  that 
the  earth  and  not  the  firmament  swung  around,  saying:  "The 
fool  will  overturn  the  whole  science  of  astronomy.  But  as  the  / 
Holy  Scriptures  state,  Joshua  bade  the  sun  stand  still  and  not  / 
the  earth."  Melancthon  was  more  interested  in  this  new  idea, 
perhaps  because  of  the  influence  of  Rheticus,  his  colleague  in 
the  University  of  Wittenberg  and  Copernicus's  great  friend  and 
supporter ;  but  he  too  preferred  not  to  dissent  from  the  accepted 
opinion  of  the  ages.3  Informally  in  a  letter  to  a  friend  he 


1See  before,  p.  30. 

'Luther:  Tischreden;  IV,  575;  "Der  Narr  will  die  ganze  Kunst  Astron- 
omiae  umkehren.  Aber  wie  die  heilige  Schrift  anzeigt,  so  heiss  Josua 
die  Sonne  still  stehen,  und  nicht  das  Erdreich." 

3"Nori  est  autem  hominis  bene  instituti  dissentire  a  consensu  tot  sae- 
culorum."  Praefatio  Philippi  Melanthonis,  1531,  in  Sacro-Busto:  Libel- 
lus  de  Sphara  (no  date). 

39 


j 


implies  the  absurdity  of  the  new  teaching,1  and  in  his  Jnitia 
Doctrina  Physica  he  goes  to  some  pains  to  disprove  the  new 
assumption  not  merely  by  mathematics  but  by  the  Bible,  though 
with  a  kind  of  apology  to  other  physicists  for  quoting  the  Divine 
Witness.2  He  refers  to  the  phrase  in  Psalm  XIX  likening  the 
sun  in  its  course  "to  a  strong  man  about  to  run  a  race,"  proving 
that  the  sun  moves.  Another  Psalm  states  that  the  earth  was 
founded  not  to  be  moved  for  eternity,  and  a  similar  phrase 
occurs  in  the  first  chapter  of  Ecclesiastes.  Then  there  was  the 
miracle  when  Joshua  bade  the  sun  stand  still.  While  this  is  a 
sufficient  witness  to  the  truth,  there  are  other  proofs:  First,  in 
the  turning  of  a  circumference,  the  center  remains  motionless. 
Next,  changes  in  the  length  of  the  day  and  of  the  seasons  would 
ensue,  were  the  position  of  the  earth  in  the  universe  not  central, 
and  it  would  not  be  equidistant  from  the  two  poles.  (He  has 
previously  disposed  of  infinity  by  stating  that  the  heavens 
revolve  around  the  pole,  which  could  not  happen  if  a  line  drawn 
from  the  center  of  the  universe  were  infinitely  projected ).:! 
Furthermore,  the  earth  must  be  at  the  center  for  its  shadow 
to  fall  upon  the  moon  in  an  eclipse.  He  refers  next  to  the  Aris- 
totelian statement  that  to  a  simple  body  belongs  one  motion : 
the  earth  is  a  simple  body ;  therefore  it  can  have  but  one  motion. 
What  is  true  of  the  parts  applies  to  the  whole;  all  the  parts  of 
the  earth  are  borne  toward  the  earth  and  there  rest;  therefore 
the  whole  earth  is  at  rest.  Quiet  is  essential  to  growth.  Lastly, 
if  the  earth  moved  as  fast  as  it  must  if  it  moves  at  all,  every- 
thing would  fly  to  pieces.4 

1"Vidi  dialogum  et  fui  dissuassor  editionis.  Fabula  per  sese  paulatim 
consilescet;  sed  quidam  putant  esse  egregiam  katorthoma  rem  tarn  ab- 
surdam  ornare,  sicut  ille  Sarmaticus  Astronomis  qui  movet  terram  et 
figet  solem.  Profecto  sapientes  gubernatores  deberent  ingeniorum  pet- 
ulantia  cohercere."  Epistola  B.  Mithobio,  16  Oct.  1541.  P.  Melancthon : 
Opera :  IV,  679. 

2"Quamquam  autem  rident  aliqui  Physicum  testimonia  divina  citantem, 
tamen  nos  honestum  esse  censemus,  Philosophiam  conferre  ad  coelestia 
dicta,  et  in  tanta  caligine  humanae  mentis  autoritatem  divinam  con- 
sulere  ubicunque  possumus."  Melancthon :  Initia  Doctrines  Physicce : 
Bk.  I,  63. 

3Ibid:  60. 

4Ibid:  59-67. 
40 


Melancthon  thus  sums  up  the  usual  arguments  from  the 
Scriptures,  from  Aristotle,  Ptolemy  and  the  then  current 
physics,  in  opposition  to  this  theory.  Not  only  did  he  publish 
his  own  text-book  on  physics,  but  he  republished  Sacrobosco's 
famous  introduction  to  astronomy,  writing  for  it  a  preface  urg- 
ing diligent  study  of  this  little  text  endorsed  by  so  many  genera- 
tions of  scholars. 

Calvin,  the  great  teacher  of  the  Protestant  Revolt,  apparently 
was  little  touched  by  this  new  intellectual  current.1  He  did 
write  a  semi-popular  tract2  against  the  so  called  "judicial"  astro- 
logy, then  widely  accepted,  which  he,  like  Luther,  condemns  as 
a  foolish  superstition,  though  he  values  "la  vraie  science  d'astro- 
logie"  from  which  men  understand  not  merely  the  order  and 
place  of  the  stars  and  planets,  but  the  causes  of  things.  In  his 
Commentaries,  he  accepts  the  miracle  of  the  sun's  standing  still 
at  Joshua's  command  as  proof  of  the  faith  Christ  commended, 
so  strong  that  it  will  remove  mountains ;  and  he  makes  reference 
only  to  the  time-honored  Ptolemaic  theory  in  his  discussion  of 
Psalm  XIX.3 

For  the  absolute  authority  of  the  Pope  the  Protestant  leaders 
substituted  the  absolute  authority  of  the  Bible.  It  is  not  strange, 
then,  that  they  ignored  or  derided  a  theory  as  yet  unsupported 
by  proof  and  so  difficult  to  harmonize  with  a  literally  accepted 
Bible. 

How  widespread  among  the  people  generally  did  this  theory 
become  in  the  years  immediately  following  the  publication  of  the 
De  Revolutionibus?  M.  Flammarion,  in  his  Vie  de  Copernic 
(1872),  refers4  to  the  famous  clock  in  the  Strasburg  Cathedral 
as  having  been  constructed  by  the  University  of  Strasburg  in 
protest  against  the  action  taken  by  the  Holy  Office  against 


"Farrar:  Hist,  of  Interpretation:  Preface;  xviii:  "Who,"  asks  Calvin, 
"will  venture  to  place  the  authority  of  Copernicus  above  that  of  the 
Holy  Spirit?" 

2Calvin:  Oeuvres  Francois:  Traite  .    .    .  contre  I'Astrologie ;  110-112. 

3Calvin:  Op.  Om.  in  Corpus  Reformatorum:  vol.  25;  499-500;  vol.  59; 
195-196. 

4P.  78-79:  "Ce  planetaire  .  .  .  represente  le  systeme  du  monde  tel  qu'il 
a  etc  explique  par  Copernic." 

41 


Galileo,  (though  the  clock  was  constructed  in  1571  and  Galileo 
was  not  condemned  until  1633).  This  astronomical  clock  con- 
structed only  thirty  years  after  the  death  of  Copernicus,  he 
claims  represented  the  Copernican  system  of  the  universe  with 
the  planets  revolving  around  the  sun,  and  explained  clearly  in 
the  sight  of  the  people  what  was  the  thought  of  the  makers. 
Lest  no  one  should  miscomprehend,  he  adds,  the  portrait  of 
Copernicus  was  placed  there  with  this  inscription :  Nicolai 
Copernici  vera  effigies,  ex  ipsius  autographo  depicta. 

This  would  be  important  evidence  of  the  spread  of  the  theory 
were  it  true.  But  M.  Flammarion  must  have  failed  to  see  a 
brief  description  of  the  Strasburg  Clock  written  in  1856  by 
Charles  Schwilgue,  son  of  the  man  who  renovated  its  mechan- 
ism in  1838-1842.  He  describes  the  clock  as  it  was  before  his 
father  made  it  over  and  as  it  is  today.  Originally  constructed 
in  1352,  it  was  replaced  in  1571  by  an  astrolabe  based  on  the 
Ptolemaic  system ;  six  hands  with  the  zodiacal  signs  of  the 
planets  gave  their  daily  movements  and,  together  with  a  seventh 
representing  the  sun,  revolved  around  a  map  of  the  world.1 
When  M.  Schwilgue  repaired  the  clock  in  1838,  he  changed  it 
to  harmonize  with  the  Copernican  system.2 

But  within  eighteen  years  after  the  publication  of  the 
De  Revolutionibus ,  proof  of  its  influence  is  to  be  found  in  such 
widely  separated  places  as  London  and  the  great  Spanish  Uni- 
versity of  Salamanca.  In  1551,  Robert  Recorde,  court  physician 
to  Edward  and  to  Mary  and  teacher  of  mathematics,  published 
in  London  his  Castle  of  Knowledge,  an  introduction  to  astro- 
nomy and  the  first  book  printed  in  England  describing  the 
Copernican  system.3  He  evidently  did  not  consider  the  times 
quite  ripe  for  a  full  avowal  of  his  own  allegiance  to  the  new 
doctrine,  but  the  remarks  of  the  Maister  and  the  Scholler  are 
worth  repeating:4 


'Schwilgue :  p.  15.        2Ibid :  p.  48. 

"Diet,  of  Nat.  Biog:  "Recorde." 

4Quoted  (p.  135),  from  the  edition  of  1596  in  the  library  of  Mr.  George 
A.  Plimpton.  See  also  Recorde's  Whetstone  of  Witte  (1557)  as  cited 
by  Berry,  127. 

4* 


"MAISTER:  .  .  .  howbeit  Copernicus  a  man  of  great  learning, 
of  much  experience,  and  of  wonder  full  diligence  in  observation, 
hath  renewed  the  opinion  of  Aristarchus  Samius,  affirming  that 
the  earth,  not  onely  moveth  circularly  about  his  owne  centre, 
but  also  may  be,  yea  and  is,  continually  out  of  the  precise  centre 
of  the  world  eight  and  thirty  hundred  thousand  miles :  but  be- 
cause the  understanding  of  that  controversie  depends  of  pro- 
founder  knowledge  than  in  this  Introduction  may  be  uttered 
conveniently,  1  wil  let  it  passe  til  some  other  time. 

"SCHOLLER:  Nay  sit,  in  good  faith,  I  desire  not  to  heare 
such  vaine  fantasies,  so  farre  against  the  common  reason,  and 
repugnant  to  the  content  of  all  the  learned  multitude  of  Writers, 
and  therefore  let  it  passe  for  ever  and  a  day  longer. 

"MAISTER:  You  are  too  yong  to  be  a  good  judge  in  so  great 
a  matter:  it  passeth  farre  your  learning,  and  their's  also, 
that  are  much  better  learned  than  you,  to  improuve  his  supposi- 
tion by  good  arguments,  and  therefore  you  were  best  condemne 
nothing  that  you  do  not  well  understand:  but  an  other  time,  as 
1  saide,  I  will  so  declare  his  supposition,  that  you  shall  not  onely 
wonder  to  heare  it,  but  also  peradventure  be  as  earnest  then  to 
credite  it,  as  you  are  now  to  condemne  it:  in  the  meane  season 
let  us  proceed  forward  in  our  former  order  .  .  .  " 

This  little  book,  reprinted  in  1556  and  in  1596,  and  one  of  the 
most  popular  of  the  mathematical  writings  in  England  during 
that  century,  must  have  interested  the  English  in  the  new  doc- 
trine even  before  Bruno's  emphatic  presentation  of  it  to  them  in 
the  eighties. 

Yet  the  English  did  not  welcome  it  cordially.  One  of  the 
most  popular  books  of  this  period  was  Sylvester's  translation 
(1591)  of  DuBartas's  The  Divine  Weeks  which  appeared  in 
France  in  1578,  a  book  loved  especially  by  Milton.1  DuBartas 
writes  :2 

"Those  clerks  that  think — think  how  absurd  a  jest  I 
That  neither  heavens  nor  stars  do  turn  at  all, 
Nor  dance  around  this  great,  round  earthly  ball, 
But  the  earth  itself,  this  massy  globe  of  our's, 
Turns  round  about  once  every  twice  twelve  hours ! 
And  we  resemble  land-bred  novices 
New  brought  aboard  to  venture  on  the  seas ; 
Who  at  first  launching  from  the  shore  suppose 
The  ship  stands  still  and  that  the  firm  earth  goes." 


^DuBartas:   The  Divine  Weeks   (Sylvester's  trans,  edited  by  Haight) 
Preface,  pp.  xx-xxiii  and  note. 
*Op.  cit.:  72.  43 


Quite  otherwise  was  the  situation  in  the  sixteenth  century  at 
the  University  of  Salamanca.  A  new  set  of  regulations  for  the 
University,  drawn  up  at  the  King's  order  by  Bishop  Covar- 
rubias,  was  published  in  1561.  It  contained  the  provision  in 
the  curriculum  that  "Mathematics  and  Astrology  are  to  be  given 
in  three  years,  the  first,  Astrology,  the  second,  Euclid,  Ptolemy 
or  Copernicus  ad  vota  audientium,"  which  also  indicates,  as 
Vicente  de  la  Fuente  points  out,  that  at  this  University  "the 
choice  of  the  subject-matter  to  be  taught  lay  not  with  the 
«  teachers  but  with  the  students,  a  rare  situation."1  One  wonders 
what  happened  there  when  the  professors  and  students  received 
word2  from  the  Cardinal  Nuncio  at  Madrid  in  1633  that  the 
Congregations  of  the  Index  had  decreed  the  Copernican  doc- 
trine was  thereafter  in  no  way  to  be  held,  taught  or  defended. 

One  of  the  graduates  of  this  University,  Father  Zufiiga,3 
(better  known  as  Didacus  a  Stunica),  wrote  a  commentary  on 
Job  that  was  licensed  to  be  printed  in  1579,  but  was  not  pub- 
lished until  1584  at  Toledo.  Another  edition  appeared  at  Rome 
seven  years  later.  It  evidently  was  widely  read  for  it  was  con- 
demned donee  corrigatur  by  the  Index  in  1616  and  the  mathema- 
tical literature  of  the  next  half  century  contains  many  allusions 
to  his  remarks  on  Job:  IX:  6;  "Who  shaketh  the  earth  out  of 
her  place,  and  the  pillars  thereof  tremble."  After  commenting 
here  upon  the  greater  clarity  and  simplicity  of  the  Copernican 
theory,  Didacus  a  Stunica  then  states  that  the  theory  is  not  con- 
tradicted by  Solomon  in  Ecclesiastes,  as  that  "text  signifieth  no 
more  but  this,  that  although  the  succession  of  ages,  and  genera- 
tions of  men  on  earth  be  various,  yet  the  earth  itself  is  still  one 
and  the  same,  and  continueth  without  any  sensible  variation"  . . . 
and  "it  hath  no  coherence  with  its  context  (as  Philosophers 
show)  if  it  be  expounded  to  speak  of  the  earth's  immobility. 
The  motion  that  belongs  to  the  earth  by  way  of  speech  is 
assigned  to  the  sun  even  by  Copernicus  himself,  and  those  who 
are  his  followers  .  .  .  To  conclude,  no  place  can  be  produced 


aLa  Fuente ;  Historia  de  la  Universidades  .    .    .  de  Espana :  II,  314. 
2Doc.  86  in  Favaro;  130. 

5Diccionario    Enciclopedico    Hispano- Americano    le    literatura,    ciencias 
y  artes  (Barcelona,  1898). 


out  of  Holy  Scriptures  which  so  clearly  speaks  the  earth's 
immobility  as  this  doth  its  mobility.  Therefore  this  text  of 
which  we  have  spoken  is  easily  reconciled  to  this  opinion.  And 
to  set  forth  the  wonderful  power  and  wisdom  of  God  who  can 
indue  the  frame  of  the  whole  earth  (it  being  of  monstrous 
weight  by  nature)  with  motion,  this  our  Divine  pen-man  added; 
'And  the  pillars  thereof  tremble :'  As  if  he  would  teach  us,  from 
the  doctrine  laid  down,  that  it  is  moved  from  its  foundations."1 

French  thinkers,  like  the  English,  did  not  encourage  the  new 
doctrine  at  this  time.  Montaigne2  was  characteristically  indif- 
ferent: "What  shall  we  reape  by  it,  but  only  that  we  neede  not 
care  which  of  the  two  it  be?  And  who  knoweth  whether  a 
hundred  yeares  hence  a  third  opinion  will  arise  which  happily 
shall  overthrow  these  two  precedent?"  The  famous  political^ 
theorist,  Jean  Bodin,  (1530-1596),  was  as  thoroughly  opposed 
to  it  as  DuBartas  had  been.  In  the  last  year  of  his  life,  Bodin 
wrote  his  Universe?  Natures  Theatrum*  in  which  he  discussed 
the  origin  and  composition  of  the  universe  and  of  the  animal, 
vegetable,  mineral  and  spiritual  kingdoms.  These  five  books 
(or  divisions)  reveal  his  amazing  ideas  of  geology,  physics  and 
astronomy  while  at  the  same  time  they  show  a  mind  thoroughly 
at  home  in  Hebrew  and  Arabian  literature  as  well  as  in  the 
classics.  His  answer  to  the  Copernican  doctrine  is  worth  quot- 
ing to  illustrate  the  attitude  of  one  of  the  keenest  thinkers  in  a  , 
brilliant  era: 

"THEORIST:  Since  the  sun's  heat  is  so  intense  that  we  read 
it  has  sometimes  burned  crops,  houses  and  cities  in  Scythia," 
would  it  not  be  more  reasonable  that  the  sun  is  still  and  the 
earth  indeed  revolves? 


'Quoted  in  Salusbury:  Math.  Coll.:  I;  468-470  (1661),  as  a  work  inac- 
cessible to  most  readers  at  that  time  because  of  its  extreme  rarity.  It 
remained  on  the  Index  until  the  edition  of  1835. 

3Montaigne :  Essays :  Bk:  II,  c.  2:  An  Apologie  of  Raymonde  Sebonde 
(II,  352). 

3This  book,  published  at  Frankfort  in  1597,  was  translated  into  French 
by  M.  Fougerolles  and  printed  in  Lyons  that  same  year.  It  has  become 
extremely  rare  since  its  "atheistic  atmosphere"  (Peignot;  Dictionnaire) 
caused  the  Roman  Church  to  place  it  upon  the  Index  by  decree  of  1628, 
where  it  has  remained  to  this  day. 

"Cromer  in  History  of  Poland. 

45 


''MYSTIC:  Such  was  the  old  idea  of  Philolaus,  Timaeus, 
Ecphantes,  Seleucus,  Aristarchus  of  Samos,  Archimedes  and 
Eudoxus,  which  Copernicus  has  renewed  in  our  time.  But  it 
can  easily  be  refuted  by  its  shallowness  although  no  one  has 
done  it  thoroughly. 

''THE.  :  What  arguments  do  they  rely  on  who  hold  that 
the  earth  is  revolved  and  that  the.  sun  forsooth  is  still  ? 

"Mvs. :  Because  the  comprehension  of  the  human  mind 
cannot  grasp  the  incredible  speed  of  the  heavenly  spheres  and 
especially  of  the  tenth  sphere  which  must  be  ten  times  greater 
than  that  of  the  eighth,  for  in  twenty-four  hours  it  must  tra- 
verse 469,562,845  miles,  so  that  the  earth  seems  like  a  dot  in  the 
universe.  This  is  the  chief  argument.  Besides  this,  we  get  rid 
entirely  of  epicycles  in  representing  the  motions  of  the  pianei. 
and  what  is  taught  concerning  the  motion  of  trepidation  in  the 
eighth  sphere  vanishes.  Also,  there  is  no  need  for  the  ninth  and 
tenth  spheres.  There  is  one  argument  which  they  have  omitted 
'  but  which  seems  to  me  more  efficacious  than  any,  viz. :  rest  is 
nobler  than  movement,  and  that  celestial  and  divine  things  have 
a  stable  nature  while  elemental  things  have  motion,  disturbance 
and  unrest;  therefore  it  seems  more  probable  that  the  latter 
move  rather  than  the  former.  But  while  serious  absurdities 
result  from  the  idea  of  Eudoxus,  far  more  serious  ones  result 
from  that  of  Copernicus. 

'THE. :     What  are  these  absurdities  ? 

"Mvs. :  Eudoxus  knew  nothing  of  trepidation,  so  his  idea 
1  seems  to  be  less  in  error.  But  Copernicus,  in  order  to  uphold 
his  own  hypothesis,  claims  the  earth  has  three  motions,  its 
diurnal  and  annual  ones,  and  trepidation ;  if  we  add  to  these  the 
pull  of  weight  towards  the  center,  we  are  attributing  four 
| natural  motions  to  one  and  the  same  body.  If  this  is  granted, 
1  then  the  very  foundations  of  physics  must  fall  into  ruins ;  for 
all  are  agreed  upon  this,  that  each  natural  body  has  but  one 
motion  of  its  own,  and  that  all  others  are  said  to  be  either  violent 
or  voluntary.  Therefore,  since  he  claims  the  earth  is  agitated 
by  four  motions,  one  only  can  be  its  own,  the  others  must  be 
confessedly  violent;  yet  nothing  violent  in  nature  can  endure  con- 
tinuously. Furthermore  the  earth  is  not  moved  by  water,  much 
less  by  the  motion  of  air  or  fire  in  the  way  we  have  stated  the 
heavens  are  moved  by  the  revolutions  of  the  enveloping  heavens. 
Copernicus  further  does  not  claim  that  all  the  heavens  are 
immobile  but  that  some  are  moved,  that  is,  the  moon,  Mercury. 
Venus,  Mars,  Jupiter  and  Saturn.  But  why  such  diversity? 
No  one  in  his  senses,  or  imbued  with  the  slightest  knowledge  of 
physics,  will  ever  think  that  the  earth,  heavy  and  unwieldy  from 


its  own  weight  and  mass,  staggers  up  and  down  around  its  own 
center  and  that  of  the  sun ;  for  at  the  slightest  jar  of  the  earth, 
we  would  see  cities  and  fortresses,  towns  and  mountains  thrown 
down.  A  certain  courtier  Aulicus,  when  some  astrologer 
in  court  was  upholding  Copernicus's  idea  before  Duke  Albert 
of  Prussia,  turning  to  the  servant  who  was  pouring  the  Faler- 
nian,  said:  "Take  care  that  the  flagon  is  not  spilled."8  For  if 
the  earth  were  to  be  moved,  neither  an  arrow  shot  straight  up, 
nor  a  stone  dropped  from  the  top  of  a  tower  would  fall  per- 
pendicularly, but  either  ahead  or  behind.  With  this  argument 
Ptolemy  refuted  Eudoxus.  But  if  we  search  into  the  secrets  of 
the  Hebrews  and  penetrate  their  sacred  sanctuaries,  all  these 
arguments  can  easily  be  confirmed ;  for  when  the  Lord  of  Wis- 
dom said  the  sun  swept  in  its  swift  course  from  the  eastern 
shore  to  the  west,  he  added  this:  Terra  vero  stat  aeternam. 
Lastly,  all  things  on  rinding  places  suitable  to  their  natures, 
remain  there,  as  Aristotle  writes.  Since  therefore  the  earth 
has  been  alloted  a  place  fitting  its  nature,  it  cannot  be  whirled 
around  by  other  motion  than  its  own. 

"THE.  :  I  certainly  agree  to  all  the  rest  with  you,  but  Aris- 
totle's law  I  think  involves  a  paralogism,  for  by  this  argument 
the  heavens  should  be  immobile  since  they  are  in  a  place  fitting 
their  nature. 

"Mvs. :  You  argue  subtly  indeed,  but  in  truth  this  argument 
does  not  seem  necessary  to  me ;  for  what  Aristotle  admitted, 
that,  while  forsooth  all  the  parts  of  the  firmament  changed  their 
places,  the  firmament  as  a  whole  did  not,  is  exceedingly  absurd. 
For  either  the  whole  heaven  is  at  rest  or  the  whole  heaven  is 
moved.  The  senses  themselves  disprove  that  it  is  at  rest ;  there- 
fore it  is  moved.  For  it  does  not  follow  that  if  a  body  is  not 
moved  away  from  its  place,  it  is  not  moved  in  that  place.  Fur- 
thermore, since  we  have  the  most  certain  proof  of  the  movement 
of  trepidation,  not  only  all  the  parts  of  the  firmament,  but  also 
the  eight  spheres,  must  necessarily  leave  their  places  and  move 
up  and  down,  forward  and  back."1 

This  was  the  opinion  of  a  profound  thinker  and  experienced 
man  of  affairs  living  when  Tycho  Brahe  and  Bruno  were  still 
alive  and  Kepler  and  Galileo  were  beginning  their  astronomical 
investigations.  But  he  was  not  alone  in  his  views,  as  we  shall 


"Cromer  in  History  of  Poland.* 

*I  could  not  find  this  reference  in  either  of  Martin  Kromer's  books ; 
De  Origine  et  Rebus  Gestis  Polonorum,  ad  1511,  or  in  his  Res  Public® 
sive  Status  Regnl  Polonies. 

'Bodin;  Univ.  Nat.  Theatrum:  Bk.  V,  sec.  2  (end). 

47 


see;  for  at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  Copernican 
doctrine  had  few  avowed  supporters.  The  Roman  Church  was 
still  indifferent;  the  Protestants  clinging  to  the  literal  interpre- 
tation of  the  Bible  were  openly  antagonistic;  the  professors  as 
a  whole  were  too  Aristotelian  to  accept  or  pay  much  attention 
to  this  novelty,  except  Kepler  and  his  teacher  Msestlin  (though 
the  latter  refused  to  uphold  it  in  his  text-book)  j1  while  astron- 
omers and  mathematicians  who  realized  the  insuperable  objec- 
tions to  the  Ptolemaic  conception,  welcomed  the  Tychonic  sys- 
tem as  a  via  media;  and  the  common  folk,  if  they  heard  of  it 
at  all,  must  have  ridiculed  it  because  it  was  so  plainly  opposed 
to  what  they  saw  in  the  heavens  every  day.  In  the  same 
way  their  intellectual  superiors  exclaimed  at  the  "delirium"  of 
of  those  supporting  such  a  notion.2  One  thinker,  however  was 
to  see  far  more  in  the  doctrine  than  Copernicus  himself  had 
conceived,  and  by  Giordano  Bruno  the  Roman  Church  was  to 
be  aroused. 


'Delambre;  Astr.  Mod.:  I,  663. 

2Justus-Lipsius ;  Physiologic  Stoicorum;  Bk.  II;  dissert.  19;  (Dedica- 
tion 1604,  Louvain),  (IV,  947)  ;  "Vides  deliria,  quomodo  aliter  appel- 
lant?" 


CHAPTER   II. 

BRUNO  AND  GALILEO. 

WHEN  the  Roman  Catholic  authorities  awoke  to  the  dan- 
gers of  the  new  teaching,  they  struck  with  force.     The 
first    to    suffer    was    the    famous    monk-philosopher,    Giordano 
Bruno,   whose    trial   by   the    Holy   Office   was    premonitory   of 
trouble  to  come  for  Galileo.1 

After  an  elementary  education  at  Naples  near  his  birth-place, 
Nola,2  Filippo  Bruno3  entered  the  Dominican  monastery  in  1562 
or  1563  when  about  fourteen  years  old,  assuming  the  name 
Giordano  at  that  time.  Before  1572,  when  he  entered  the  priest- 
hood, he  had  fully  accepted  the  Copernican  theory  which  later  v 
became  the  basis  of  all  his  philosophical  thought.  Bruno  soon 
showed  he  was  not  made  for  the  monastic  life.  Various  pro- 
cesses were  started  against  him,  and  fleeing  to  Rome  he  aban- 
doned his  monk's  garments  and  entered  upon  the  sixteen  years 
of  wandering  over  Europe,  a  peripatetic  teacher  of  the  philos- 
ophy of  an  infinite  universe  as  deduced  from  the  Copernican 
doctrine  and  thus  in  a  way  its  herald.4  He  reached  Geneva  in 
1579  (where  he  did  not  accept  Calvinism  as  was  formerly  / 
thought),5  but  decided  before  many  months  had  passed  that  it 
was  wise  to  depart  elsewhere  because  of  the  unpleasant  position 
in  which  he  found  himself  there.  He  had  been  brought  before 
the  Council  for  printing  invectives  against  one  of  the  professors, 


^erti:  285.  3McIntyre:  3-15. 

3Four  lives  of  Bruno  have  been  written  within  the  last  seventy-five 
years.  The  first  is  Jordano  Bruno  by  Christian  Bartholmess  (2  vol.,  Paris 
1846).  The  next,  Vita  di  Giordano  Bruno  da  Nola  by  Domenico  Berti 
(1868,  Turin),  quotes  in  full  the  official  documents  of  his  trial.  Frith's 
Life  of  Giordano  Bruno  (London,  1887),  has  been  rendered  out  of  date 
by  J.  L.  Mclntyre's  Giordano  Bruno  (London,  1903),  which  includes  a 
critical  bibliography.  In  addition,  W.  R.  Thayer's  Throne  Makers  (New 
York,  1899),  gives  translations  of  Bruno's  confessions  to  the  Venetian 
Inquisition.  Bruno's  Latin  works  (Opera  Latina  Conscripta),  have  been 
republished  by  Fiorentino  (3  vol.,  Naples,  1879),  and  the  Opere  Italiane 
by  Gentile  (3  vol.,  Naples,  1907). 

'Bartholmess :  I,  134.  'Libri:  IV,  144. 

49 


pointing  out  some  twenty  of  his  errors.  The  Council  sent  him 
to  the  Consistory,  the  governing  body  of  the  church,  where  a 
formal  sentence  of  excommunication  was  passed  against  him. 
When  he  apologized  it  was  withdrawn.  Probably  a  certain 
stigma  remained,  and  he  left  Geneva  soon  thereafter  with  a. 
warm  dislike  for  Calvinism.  After  lecturing  at  the  University 
of  Toulouse  he  appeared  in  Paris  in  1581,  where  he  held  an 
extraordinary  readership.  Two  years  later  he  was  in  England, 
for  he  lectured  at  Oxford  during  the  spring  months  and  defend- 
ed the  Copernican  theory  before  the  Polish  prince  Alasco  during 
the  latter's  visit  there  in  June.1 

To  Bruno  belongs  the  glory  of  the  first  public  proclamation 
in  England  of  the  new  doctrine,2  though  only  Gilbert3  and  pos- 
sibly Wright  seem  to  have  accepted  it  at  the  time.  Upon 
Bruno's  return  to  London,  he  entered  the  home  of  the  French 
ambassador  as  a  kind  of  secretary,  and  there  spent  the  happiest 
years  of  his  life  till  the  ambassador's  recall  in  October,  1585. 
It  was  during  this  period  that  he  wrote  some  of  his  most  famous 
books.  In  La  Cena  de  la  Ceneri  he  defended  the  Copernican 
\/  theory,  incidentally  criticising  the  Oxford  dons  most  severely,4 
for  which  he  apologized  in  De  la  Causa,  Principio  et  Uno.  He 
developed  his  philosophy  of  an  infinite  universe  in  De  I'lnfinito 
e  Mondi,  and  in  the  Spaccio  de  la  Bestia  Trionphante  "attacked 
all  religions  of  mere  credulity  as  opposed  to  religions  of  truth 
and  deeds."1  This  last  book  was  at  once  thought  to  be  a  biting 
attack  upon  the  Roman  Church  and  later  became  one  of  the 
grounds  of  the  Inquisition's  charges  against  him.  During  this 
time  in  London  also,  he  came  to  know  Sir  Philip  Sydney  inti- 
mately, and  Fulk  Greville  as  well  as  others  of  that  brilliant 
period.  He  may  have  known  Bacon;2  but  it  is  highly  improb- 
able that  he  and  Shakespeare  met,5  or  that  Shakespeare  ever 
was  influenced  by  the  other's  philosophy.6 

'Mclntyre :  16-40.  2Bartholmess :  I,  134. 

'Gilbert:  De  Magnete  (London,  1600).  "Berti:  369,  Doc.  XIII. 

"Beyersdorf :  Giordano  Bruno  und  Shakespear,  8-36. 

6Such  passages  as  Troilus  and  Cressida :  Act  I,  sc.  3 ;  King  John,  Act 
III,  sc.  1 ;  and  Merry  Wives,  Act  III,  sc.  2,  indicate  that  Shakespeare 
accepted  fully  the  Ptolemaic  conception  of  a  central,  immovable  earth. 
See  also  Beyersdorf:  op.  cit. 

5° 


Leaving  Paris  soon  after  his  return  thither,  Bruno  wandered 
into  southern  Germany.  At  Marburg  he  was  not  permitted  to 
teach,  but  at  Wittenberg  the  Lutherans  cordially  welcomed  him 
into  the  university.  After  a  stay  of  a  year  and  a  half,  he  moved 
on  to  Prague  for  a  few  months,  then  to  Helmstadt,  Frankfort 
and  Zurich,  and  back  to  Frankfort  again  where,  in  1591,  he 
received  an  invitation  from  a  young  Venetian  patrician,  Mcecen- 
igo,  to  come  to  Venice  as  his  tutor.  He  re-entered  Italy,  there- 
fore, in  August,  much  to  the  amazement  of  his  contemporaries. , 
It  is  probable  that  Moecenigo  was  acting  for  the  Inquisition.1 
At  any  rate,  he  soon  denounced  Bruno  to  that  body  and  in  May, 
1592,  surrendered  him  to  it.1' 

In  his  trial  before  the  Venetian  Inquisition,3  Bruno  told  the 
story  of  his  life  and  stated  his  beliefs  in  answer  to  the  charges 
against  him,  based  mainly  on  travesties  of  his  opinions.  In  this 
statement  as  well  as  in  La  Cena  de  le  Ceneri,  and  in  De  Immen- 
so  et  InnumerabiltSf*  Bruno  shows  how1  completely  he  had  not  \ 
merely  accepted  the  Copernican  doctrine,  but  had  expanded  it 
far  beyond  its  author's  conception.  The  universe  according  to 
Copernicus,  though  vastly  greater  than  that  conceived  by  Aris- 
totle and  Ptolemy,  was  still  finite  because  enclosed  within  the 
sphere  of  the  fixed  stars.  Bruno  declared  that  not  only  was  the 
earth  only  a  lesser  planet,  but  "this  world  itself  was  merely  one 
of  an  infinite  number  of  particular  worlds  similar  to  this,  and 
that  all  the  planets  and  other  stars  are  infinite  worlds  without 
number  composing  an  infinite  universe,  so  that  there  is  a  double 
infinitude,  that  of  the  greatness  of  the  universe,  and  that  of  the 
multitude  of  worlds."5  How  important  this  would  be  to  the 
Church  authorities  may  be  realized  by  recalling  the  patristic 
doctrine  that  the  universe  was  created  for  man  and  that  his 
home  is  its  center.  Of  course  their  cherished  belief  must  be 
defended  from  such  an  attack,  and  naturally  enough,  the 
Copernican  doctrine  as  the  starting  point  of  Bruno's  theory  of 


'Mclntyre:  68.        2Ibid  :  47-72. 
sSee  official  documents  in  Berti :  327-395. 

4Bruno:  DC  Immenso  ct  Innumerabilis ;  Lib.   Ill,  cap.  9   (vol.   1,  pt.   1, 
380-386). 
'Thayer:  268. 

51 


an  infinite  universe  was  thus  brought  into  question;1  for,  as  M. 
Berti  has  said,2  Bruno's  doctrine  was  equally  an  astro-theology 
or  a  theological  astronomy. 

The  Roman  Inquisition  was  not  content  to  let  the  Venetian 
court  deal  with  this  arch  heretic,  but  wrote  in  September,  1592, 
demanding  his  extradition.  The  Venetian  body  referred  its  con- 
sent to  the  state  for  ratification  which  the  Doge  and  Council 
refused  to  grant.  Finally,  when  the  Papal  Nuncio  had  repre- 
sented that  Bruno  was  not  a  Venetian  but  a  Neapolitan,  and  that 
cases  against  him  were  still  outstanding  both  in  Naples  and  in 
Rome,  the  state  consented,  and  in  February  of  the  next  year, 
Bruno  entered  Rome,  a  prisoner  of  the  Inquisition.  Nothing 
further  is  known  about  him  until  the  Congregations  took  up  his 
case  on  February  4th,  1599.  Perhaps  Pope  Clement  had  hoped 
to  win  back  to  the  true  faith  this  prince  of  heretics.8  However 
Bruno  stood  firm,  and  early  in  the  following  year  he  was 
degraded,  sentenced  and  handed  over  to  the  secular  authorities, 
who  burned  him  at  the  stake  in  the  Campo  di  Fiori,  February 
17,  1600.4  All  his  books  were  put  on  the  Index  by  decree  of 
February  8,  1600,  (where  they  remain  to  this  day),  and  as  a 
consequence  they  became  extremely  rare.  It  is  well  to  remem- 
ber Bruno's  fate,  when  considering  Galileo's  case,  for  Galileo5 
was  at  that  time  professor  of  mathematics  in  the  university  of 
Padua  and  fully  cognizant  of  the  event. 

Galileo's  father,  though  himself  a  skilled  mathematician,  had 


'Berti:  285.  2Ibid:  282.  3Fahie:  82-89.  "Thayer:  299. 

8The  publication  of  A.  Favaro's  Galileo  e  I'lnquisizione:  Documenti  del 
Processo  Galileiano  .  .  .  per  la  prima  volta  integralmente  pubblicati, 
(Firenze,  1907),  together  with  that  of  the  National  Edition  (in  20  vols.) 
of  Galileo's  works,  edited  by  Favaro  (Firenze,  completed  1909),  renders 
somewhat  obsolete  all  earlier  lives  of  Galileo.  The  more  valuable,  how- 
ever, of  these  books  are:  Martin's  Galilee  (Paris,  1868),  a  scholarly 
Catholic  study  containing  valuable  bibliographical  notes;  Anon.  (Mrs. 
Olney)  :  Private  Life  of  Galileo,  based  largely  on  his  correspondence 
with  his  daughter  from  which  many  extracts  are  given ;  and  von  Gebler's 
Galileo  Galilei  and  the  Roman  Curia  (trans,  by  Mrs.  Sturge,  London, 
1879),  which  includes  in  the  appendix  the  various  decrees  in  the  original. 
Fahie's  Life  of  Galileo  (London,  1903),  is  based  on  Favaro's  researches 
and  is  reliable.  The  documents  of  the  trial  have  been  published  in  part 
by  de  1'Epinois,  von  Gebler  and  Berti,  but  Favaro's  is  the  complete  and 
authoritative  edition. 


intended  that  his  son  (born  at  Pisa,  February  15,  1564),  should 
be  a  cloth-dealer,  but  at  length  permitted  him  to  study  medicine 
instead  at  the  university  of  Pisa,  after  an  elementary  education 
at  the  monastery  of  Vallombrosa  near  Florence.  At  the  Tuscan 
Court  in  Pisa,  Galileo  received  his  first  lesson  in  mathematics, 
which  thereupon  became  his  absorbing  interest.  After  nearly 
four  years  he  withdrew  from  the  university  to  Florence  and 
devoted  himself  to  that  science  and  to  physics.  His  services  as 
a  professor  at  this  time  were  refused  by  five  of  the  Italian  uni- 
versities ;  finally,  in  1 589,  he  obtained  the  appointment  to  the 
chair  of  physics  at  Pisa.  He  became  so  unpopular  there,  how- 
ever, through  his  attacks  on  the^Aristotelian  physicslof  the  day, 
that  after  three  years  he  resigned  and  accepted  a  similar  posi- 
tion at  Padua.1  He  remained  here  nearly  eighteen  years  till  his 
longing  for  leisure  in  which  to  pursue  his  researches,  and  the 
patronage  of  his  good  friend,  the  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany, 
brought  him  a  professorship  at  the  university  of  Pisa  again,  this 
time  without  obligation  of  residence  nor  of  lecturing.  He  took 
up  his  residence  in  Florence  in  1610;  and  later  (1626),  pur- 
chased a  villa  at  Arcetri  outside  the  city,  in  order  to  be  near  the 
convent  where  his  favorite  daughter  "Suor  Maria  Celeste"  was 
a  religious.2 

During  the  greater  part  of  his  lectureship  at  Padua,  Galileo 
taught  according  to  the  Ptolemaic  cosmogony  but  of  compliance 
with  (popular  feelingj  though  himself  a  Copernican.  In  a  letter 
to  Kepler  (August  4,  1597)3  he  speaks  of  his  entire  acceptance 
of  the  new  system  for  some  years ;  but  not  until  after  the  appear-  \ 
ance  of  the  New  Star  in  the  heavens  in  1604  and  1605,  and  the  ] 
controversy  that  its  appearance  aroused  over  the  Aristotelian 
notion  of  the  perfect  and  unchangeable  heavens,  did  he  publicly 
repudiate  the  old  scheme  and  teach  the  new.  The  only  informa- 
tion we  have  as  to  how  he  came  to  adopt  the  Copernican  scheme 
for  himself  is  the  account  given  by  "Sagredo"  Galileo's  spokes- 
man in  the.  famous  Dialogue  on  the  Two  Principal  Systems 
(1632): 


aFahie:  20-40.  2Ibid:  121. 

3Galileo:    Opere,  X,  68. 


53 


"Being  very  young  and  having  scarcely  finished  my  course  of 
Philosophy  which  I  left  off,  as  being  set  upon  other  employ- 
ments, there  chanced  to  come  into  these  parts  a  certain  foreigner 
of  Rostock,  whose  name  as  I  remember,  was  Christianus  Vur- 
stitius,  a  follower  of  Copernicus,  who  in  an  Academy  made  two 
or  three  lectures  upon  this  point,  to  whom  many  flock't  as  audi- 
tors; but  I  thinking  they  went  more  for  the  novelty  of  the  sub- 
ject than  otherwise,  did  not  go  to  hear  him ;  for  I  had  concluded 
with  myself  that  that  opinion  could  be  no  other  than  a  solemn 
madnesse.  And  questioning  some  of  those  who  had  been  there, 
I  perceived  they  all  made  a  jest  thereof,  except  one,  who  told 
me  that  the  business  was  not  altogether  to  be  laugh't  at,  and 
because  this  man  was  reputed  by  me  to  be  very  intelligent  and 
wary,  I  repented  that  I  was  not  there,  and  began  from  that  time 
forward  as  oft  as  I  met  with  anyone  of  the  Copernican  persua- 
sion, to  demand  of  them,  if  they  had  always  been  of  the  same 
judgment;  and  of  as  many  as  I  examined,  I  found  not  so  much 
as  one,  who  told  me  not  that  he  had  been  a  long  time  of  the  con- 
trary opinion,  but  to  have  changed  it  for  this,  as  convinced  by 
the  reasons  proving  the  same :  and  afterwards  questioning  them, 
one  by  one,  to  see  whether  they  were  well  possest  of  the  reasons 
of  the  other  side,  I  found  them  all  to  be  very  ready  and  perfect 
in  them;  so  that  I  could  not  truly  say  that  they  had  took  up  this 
opinion  out  of  ignorance,  vanity,  or  to  show  the  acuteness  of 
their  wits.  On  the  contrary,  of  as  many  of  the  Peripateticks  and 
Ptolemeans  as  I  have  asked  (and  out  of  curiosity  I  have  talked 
with  many)  what  pains  they  had  taken  in  the  Book  of  Coperni- 
cus, I  found  very  few  that  had  so  much  as  superficially  perused 
it;  but  of  those  whom,  I  thought,  had  understood  the  same,  npt 
one;  and  moreover,  I  have  enquired  amongst  the  followers  of 
the  Peripatetick  Doctrine,  if  ever  any  of  them  had  held  the  con- 
trary opinion,  and  likewise  found  that  none  had.  Whereupon 
considering  that  there  was  no  man  who  followed  the  opinion  of 
Copernicus  that  had  not  been  first  on  the  contrary  side,  and  that 
was  not  very  well  acquainted  with  the  reasons  of  Aristotle  and 
Ptolemy ;  and  on  the  contrary,  that  there  is  not  one  of  the  fol- 
lowers of  Ptolemy  that  had  ever  been  of  the  judgment  of  Coper- 
nicus, and  that  had  left  that  to  embrace  this  of  Aristotle,  con- 
sidering, I  say,  these  things,  I  began  to  think,  that  one,  who 
leaveth  an  opinion  imbued  with  his  milk,  and  followed  by  very 
many,  to  take  up  another  owned  by  very  few,  and  denied  by  all 
the  Schools,  and  that  really  seems  a  very  great  Parodox,  must 
needs  have  been  moved,  not  to  say  forced,  by  more  powerful 
reasons.  For  this  cause  I  am  become  very  curious  to  dive,  as 


54 


they  say,  into  the  bottom  of  this  business   .    .  and  bring  myself 
to  a  certainty  in  this  subject."1 

Galileo's  brilliant  work  in  mechanics  and  his  great  popular- 
ity— for  his  lectures  were  thronged — combined  with,  his  skilled 
and  witty  attacks  upon  the  accepted  scientific  ideas  of  the  age, 
embittered  and  antagonized  many  who  were  both  conservative 
and   jealous.2     The  Jesuits   particularly   resented   his    influence 
and  power,   for  they  claimed  the  leadership  in  the  educational 
world  and  were  jealous  of  intruders.     Furthermore,  they  were  T 
houiul   by   the   decree   of   the   fiftieth   General   Congregation   of    r 
their    society    in    1593    to    defend    Aristotle;,    a    decree    strictly   • 
enforced.3     While  a  few  of  the  Jesuits  were  friendly  disposed 
to  Galileo  at  first,  the  controversies  in  which  he  and  they  became 
involved  and  their  bitter  attacks  upon  him  made  him   feel  by 
1633  that  they  were  among  his  chief  enemies.-3 

Early  in  1609,  Galileo  heard  a  rumor  of  a  spy-glass  having 
been  made  in  Flanders,  and  proceeded  to  work  one  out  for  him- 
self according  to  the  laws  of;  perspective.  The  fifth  telescope 
that  he  made  magnified  thirty  diameters,  and  it  was  with  such 
instruments  of  his  own  manufacture  that  he  made  in  the  next 
three  years  his  famous  discoveries :  Jupiter's  four  satellites 
(which  he  named  the  Medicean  Planets),  Saturn's  "tripartite" 
character  (the  rings  were  not  recognized  as  such  for  several 
decades  thereafter),  the  stars  of  the  Milky  Way,  the  crescent 
form  of  Venus,  the  mountains  of  the  moon,  many  more  fixed 
stars,  and  the  spots  on  the  sun.  Popular  interest  waxed  with  i 
each  new  discovery  and  from  all  sides  came  requests  for  tele- 
scopes ;  yet  there  were  those  who  absolutely  refused  even  to  look 
through  a  telescope  lest  they  be  compelled  to  admit  Aristotle 
was  mistaken,  and  others  claimed  that  Jupiter's  moons  were 
merely  defects  in  the  instrument.  The  formal  announcement 
of  the  first  of  these  discoveries  was  made  in  the  Sidereus  Nuncius 
(1610),  a  book  that  aroused  no  little  opposition.  Kepler,  how- 
ever, had  it  reprinted  at  once  in  Prague  with  a  long  apprecia- 
tive preface  of  his  own.4 

"The  Second  Day'  in  Salusbury :  Math.  Coll.  I,  110-111. 

JFahie:  265. 

3Conway:  46-47.        4Fahie  :  77-126. 

55 


The  following  March  Galileo  went  to  Rome  to  show  his  dis- 
coveries and  was  received  with  the  utmost  distinction  by  princes 
and  church  dignitaries  alike.  A  commission  of  four  scientific 
members  of  the  Roman  College  had  previously  examined  his 
claims  at  Cardinal  Bellarmin's  suggestion,  and  had  admitted 
their  truth.  Now  Pope  Paul  V  gave  him  long  audiences ;  the 
Academia  dei  Lincei  elected  him  a  member,  and  everywhere  he 
was  acclaimed.  Nevertheless  his  name  appears  on  the  secret 
books  of  the  Holy  Office  as  early  as  May  of  that  year  (161 1).1 
Already  he  was  a  suspect. 

His  Delle  Macchie  Solari  (1611)  brought  on  a  sharp  contest 
over  the  question  of  priority  of  discovery  between  him  and  the 
Jesuit  father,  Christopher  Scheiner  of  Ingolstadt,  from  which 
Galileo  emerged  victorious  and  more  disliked  than  before  by  that 
order.  Opposition  was  becoming  active;  Father  Castelli,  for 
instance,  the  professor  of  mathematics  at  Pisa  and  Galileo's  inti- 
mate friend,  was  forbidden  to  discuss  in  his  lectures  the  double 
motion  of  the  earth  or  even  to  hint  at  its  probability.  This  same 
father  wrote  to  his  friend  early  in  December,  1613,  to  tell  him  of 
a  dinner-table  conversation  on  this  matter  at  the  Tuscan  Court, 
then  wintering  at  Pisa.  Castelli  told  how  the  Dowager  Grand 
Duchess  Cristina  had  had  her  religious  scruples  aroused  by  a 
remark  that  the  earth's  motion  must  be  wrong  because  it  con- 
tradicted the  Scriptures,  a  statement  that  he  had  tried  to  refute.2 
Galileo  wrote  in  reply  (December  21,  1613),  the  letter3  that  was 
to  cause  him  endless  trouble,  in  which  he  marked  out  the  boun- 
daries between  science  and  religion  and  declared  it  a  mistake  to 
take  the  literal  interpretation  of  passages  in  Scripture  that  were 
obviously  written  according  to  the  understanding  of  the  com- 
mon people.  He  pointed  out  in  addition  how  futile  the  miracle 
of  the  sun's  standing  still  was  as  an  argument  against  the  Coper- 
nican  doctrine  for,  even  according  to  the  Ptolemaic  system,  not 
the  sun  but  the  primum  mobile  must  be  stayed  for  the  day  to  bex 
lengthened. 

Father  Castelli  allowed  others  to  read  and  to  copy  this  sup- 
posedly private  letter;  copies  went  from  hand  to  hand  in  Flor- 

aDoc.  in  Favaro:  13.  2Fahie:  149 

3Galileo:   Opere,  V,  281-288. 

56 


ence  and  discussion  ran  high.  On  the  fourth  Sunday  in  Decem- 
ber, 1614,  Father  Caccini  of  the  Dominicans  preached  a  sermon 
in  the  church  of  S.  M.  Novella  on  Joshua's  miracle,  in  which  he 
sharply  denounced  the  Copernican  doctrine  taught  by  Galileo  as 
heretical,  so  he  believed.1  The  Copernicans  found  a  Neapolitan 
Jesuit  who  replied  to  Caccini  the  following  Sunday  from  the 
pulpit  of  the  Duomo.2 

In  February  (1615),  came  the  formal  denunciation  of  Galileo 
to  the  Holy  Office  at  Rome  by  Father  Lorini,  a  Dominican  asso- 
ciate of  Caccini's  at  the  Convent  San  Marco.  The  father  sent 
with  his  "friendly  warning,"  a  copy  of  the  letter  to  Castelli 
charging  that  it  contained  "many  propositions  which  were  either 
suspect  or  temerarious,"  and,  he  added,  "though  the  Galileisti 
were  good  Christians  they  were  rather  stubborn  and  obstinate 
in  their  opinions."3  The  machinery  of  the  Inquisition  began  se- 
cretly to  turn.  The  authorities  failed  to  get  the  original  of  the 
letter,  for  Castelli  had  returned  that  to  Galileo  at  the  latter's  re- 
quest.4 Pope  Paul  sent  word  to  Father  Caccini  to  appear  before 
the  Holy  Office  in  Rome  to  depose  on  this  matter  of  Galileo's 
errors  "pro  exoneratione  suae  conscientise."5  This  he  did  "freely" 
in  March  and  was  of  course  sworn  to  secrecy.  He  named  a  cer- 
tain nobleman,  a  Copernican,  as  the  source  of  his  information 
about  Galileo,  for  he  did  not  know  the  latter  even  by  sight.  This 
nobleman  was  by  order  of  the  Pope  examined  in  November  after 
some  delay  by  the  Inquisitor  at  Florence.  His  testimony  was  to 
the  effect  that  he  considered  Galileo  the  best  of  Catholics." 

Meanwhile  the  Consultors  of  the  Holy  Office  had  examined 
Lorini's  copy  of  the  letter  and  reported  the  rinding  of  only  three 
objectionable  places  all  of  which,  they  stated,  could  be  amended 
by  changing  certain  doubtful  phrases ;  otherwise  it  did  not 
deviate  from  the  true  faith.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
copy  they  had  differed  in  many  minor  respects  from  the  original 
letter,  and  in  one  place  heightened  a  passage  with  which  the 
Examiners  found  fault  as  imputing  falsehood  to  the  Scriptures 


'Doc.  in  Favaro :  48-49. 

2Doc.  in  Favaro  :  49.         3Ibid  :  38 :   "amorevole  avviso." 

4Ibid:  46,  47,  51.        5Ibid :  47.        "Ibid:  49. 


57 


although  they  are  infallible.1  Galileo's  own  statement  ran  that 
there  were  many  passages  in  the  Scriptures  which  according  to 
the  literal  meaning  of  the  words,  "hanno  aspetto  diverse  dal 
vero.  .  .  '  The  copy  read,  "molte  propositioni  falso  quanto  al 
nudo  senso  delle  parole." 

Rumors  of  trouble  reached  Galileo  and,  urged  on  by  his 
friends,  in  1615  he  wrote  a  long  formal  elaboration  of  the  earlier 
letter,  addressing  this  one  to  the  Dowager  Grand  Duchess,  but 
he  had  only  added  fuel  to  the  fire.  At  the  end  of  the  year  he 
voluntarily  went  to  Rome,  regardless  of  any  possible  danger  to 
himself,  to  see  if  he  could  not  prevent  a  condemnation  of  the 
doctrine.2  It  came  as  a  decided  surprise  to  him  to'  receive  an 
order  to  appear  before  Cardinal  Bellarmin  on  February  26, 
1616,3  and  there  to  learn  that  the  Holy  Office  had  already  con- 
demned it  two  days  before.  He  was  told  that  the  Holy  Office 
had  declared :  first,  "that  the  proposition  that  the  sun  is  the  cen- 
ter of  the  universe  and  is  immobile  is  foolish  and  absurd  in  phil- 
osophy and  formally  heretical  since  it  contradicts  the  express 
words  of  the  Scriptures  in  many  places,  according  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words  and  the  common  interpretation  and  sense  of  the 
Fathers  and  the  doctors  of  theology ;  and,  secondly,  that  the 
proposition  that  the  earth  is  not  the  center  of  the  universe  nor 
immobile  receives  the  same  censure  in  philosophy  and  in  regard 
to  its  theological  truth,  it  at  least  is  erroneous  in  Faith."3 

Exactly  what  was  said  at  that  meeting  between  the  two  men 
became  the  crucial  point  in  Galileo's  trial  sixteen  years  later, 
hence  a  somewhat  detailed  study  is  important.  At  the  meeting 
of  the  Congregation  on  February  25th,  the  Pope  ordered  Cardi- 
nal Bellarmin  to  summon  Galileo  and,  in  the  presence  of  a  notary 
and  witnesses  lest  he  should  prove  recusant,  warn  him  to  aban- 
don the  condemned  opinion  and  in  every  way  to  abstain  from 
teaching,  defending  or  discussing  it ;  if  he  did  not  acquiesce,  he 
was  to  be  imprisoned.3  The  Secret  Archives  of  the  Vatican 
contain  a  minute  reporting  this1  interview  (dated  February  26, 
1616),  in  which  the  Cardinal  is  said  to  have  ordered  Galileo  to 
relinquish  this  condemned  proposition,  "nee  earn  de  caetero, 


'Ibid:  43-45,  see  original  in  Galileo:  Operc,  V,  281-285. 
2Doc.  in  Favaro:  78.        3Ibid :  61. 

58 


quovis  modo,  teneat,  doceat  aut  defendat,  verbo  aut  scriptis," 
and  that  Galileo  promised  to  obey.1  Rumors  evidently  were  rife 
in  Rome  at  the  time  as  to  what  had  happened  at  this  secret  inter- 
view, for  Galileo  wrote  to  the  Cardinal  in  May  asking  for  a 
statement  of  what  actually  had  occurred  so  that  he  might  silence 
his  enemies.  The  Cardinal  replied : 

"We,  Robert  Cardinal  Bellarmin,  having  heard  that  Signor 
Galileo  was  calumniated  and  charged  with  having  abjured 
in  our  hand,  and  also  of  being  punished  by  salutary 
penance,  and  being  requested  to  give  the  truth,  state  that  the 
aforesaid  Signor  Galileo  has  not  abjured  in  our  hand  nor  in  the 
hand  of  any  other  person  in  Rome,  still  less  in  any  other  place, 
so  far  as  we  know,  any  of  his  opinions  and  teachings,  nor  has 
he  received  salutary  penance  nor  any  other  kind;  but  only  was 
he  informed  of  the  declaration  made  by  his  Holiness  and  pub- 
lished by  the  Sacred  Congregation  of  the  Index,  in  which  it  is 
stated  that  the  doctrine  attributed  to  Copernicus, — that  the 
earth  moves  around  the  sun  and  that  the  sun  stands  in  the  center  \ 
of  the  world  without  moving  from  the  east  to  the  west,  is  con- 
trary to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  therefore  cannot  be  defended 
nor  held  (non  si  possa  difendere  ne  tenere).  And  in  witness  of 
this  we  have  written  and  signed  these  presents  with  our  own 
hand,  this  26th  day  of  May,  1616. 

ROBERT  CARDINAL  BELLARMIN. "- 

Galileo's  defense  sixteen  years  later3  was  that  he  had  obeyed 
the  order  as  given  him  by  the  Cardinal  and  that  he  had  not 
"defended  nor  held"  the  doctrine  in  his  Dialoghi  but  had  refuted 
it.  The  Congregation  answered  that  he  had  been  ordered  not 
only  not  to  hold  nor  defend,  but  also  not  to  treat  in  any  wav 
(quovis  modo)  this  condemned  subject.  When  Galileo  dis- 
claimed all  recollection  of  that  phrase  and  produced  the  Cardi- 
nal's statement  in  support  of  his  position,  he  was  told  that  this 
document,  far  from  lightening  his  guilt,  greatly  aggravated  it 
since  he  had  dared  to  deal  with  a  subject  that  he  had  been 
informed  was  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.4 

To  return  to  1616.  On  the  third  of  March  the  Cardinal 
reported  to  the  Congregation  in  the  presence  of  the  Pope  that  he 
had  warned  Galileo  and  that  Galileo  had  acquiesced.5  The  Con- 


lDoc.  in  Favaro :  61-62. 

2Ibid:  88.         3Ibid  :  80-86.         4Ibid  :   145.         5Ibid  :   16. 


59 


gregation  then  reported  its  decree  suspending  "until  corrected" 
"Nicolai  Copernici  De  Revolutionibus  Orbium  Caelestium,  et 
Didaci  Astunica  in  Job,"  and  prohibiting  "Epistola  Fratris  Pauli 
Antonii  Foscarini  Carmelitse,"  together  with  all  other  books 
dealing  with  this  condemned  and  prohibited  doctrine.  The  Pope 
ordered  this  decree  to  be  published  by  the  Master  of  the  Sacred 
\Palace,  which  was  done  two  days  later.1  But  this  prohibition 
could  not  have  been  widely  known  for  two  or  three  years ;  the 
next  year  Mulier  published  his  edition  of  the  De  Revolutionibus 
at  Amsterdam  without  a  word  of  reference  to  it ;  in  1618 
Thomas  Feyens,  professor  at  Louvain,  heard  vague  rumors  of 
the  condemnation  and  wondered  if  it  could  be  true;2  and  the 
following  spring  Fromundus,  also  at  Louvain  and  later  a  noted 
antagonist  of  the  new  doctrine,  wrote  to  Feyens  asking: 

"What  did  I  hear  lately  from  you  about  the  Copernicans? 
That  they  have  been  condemned  a  year  or  two  ago  by  our  Holy 
Father,  Pope  Paul  V?  Until  now  I  have  known  nothing  about 
it;  no  more  have  this  crowd  of  German  and  Italian  scholars, 
very  learned  and,  as  I  think,  very  Catholic,  who  admit  with 
Copernicus  that  the  earth  is  turned.  Is  it  possible  that  after  a 
lapse  of  time  as  considerable  as  this,  we  have  nothing  more  than 
a  rumor  of  such  an  event  ?  I  find  it  hard  to  believe,  since  nothing 
more  definite  has  come  from  Italy.  Definitions  of  this  sort 
ought  above  all  to  be  published  in  the  universities  where  the 
learned  men  are  to  whom  the  danger  of  such  an  opinion  is  very 
great."3 

Galileo  meanwhile  had  retired  to  Florence  and  devoted  him- 
self, to  mechanical  science,  (of  which  his  work  is  the  founda- 
tion) though  constantly  harassed  by  much  ill  health  and  many 
family  perplexities.  At  the  advice  of  his  friends,  he  allowed 
the  attacks  on  the  Copernican  doctrine  to  go  unanswered,4  till 


in  Favaro:  16.        2Monchamp :  46. 

3Fromundus :  De  Cometa  Anni  1618:  chap.  VII,  p.  68.  (From  the  pri- 
vate library  of  Dr.  E.  E.  Slosson.  A  rare  book  which  Lecky  could  not 
find.  History  of  Rationalism  in  Europe,  I,  280,  note.) 

4In  1620  the  Congregation  issued  the  changes  it  required  to  have  made 
in  the  De  Revolutionibus.  They  are  nine  in  all,  and  consist  mainly  in 
changing  assertion  of  the  earth's  movement  to  hypothetical  statement 
and  in  striking  out  a  reference  to  the  earth  as  a  planet.  Doc.  in  Favaro : 
140-141.  See  illustration,  p.  61. 

60 


rg                    NICOLA!     COPERNICI 
motum,  qui  circa  medium  eft,  generalius  accipere ,  acfitis  efle , 
dum  unufoui/quc  motusfiiiipfius  medio  incumbat . 
"      "^ 


Notz. 


Sol-vuntur  hoc  capite  difficulties  4  Ptolemto  adverftu  motum  ttrrt, 
,  &  quidcm  inge/tiofe  magif  qn*mfilide,  excogttata,  nempt  nov* 
hypothefi  de  motu  aerit  quam  Ptolem&tu  ignora/evidetur. 

Vtteres  terr*  glfbum  ex  eiuabttf  partibus  conftttut  dixtrunt  y  ex  terr* 
&  tqutf  •  Coper  mew  htfcepartibufaddiitertiam  ,  nempeaerem  itrr*  ci'r- 
e»mf;ifum,adeout  terra  jit  g!obiijiiu$  velut  nucleus.  Htnctottghbo  ex 
tribtMdtvcrfupArtibtu  eompoftto  Copernicus  tribuit  motum  h«c  locoftm- 
flicem  ,  c?*  cjtp.  undecimo  trtplicem.  in  qtiantam  vero  &ltitudinem  acr  ijtt 
terrx  (  ut  fie  loq  uar)  affix  us  fupra  terram  AtteflAtttr,  Author  non  deptttt: 
hoc  tamen  tnnuit  ,  tn  eogigm  ventos^  ntibts,  tonitrua,  &  cttera  meteor  A. 
Htcaer  nuncHparidcbtiit  acr  terrenuf  ^cujttf  afflatu  vruunt  qHtcuntque 
in  terra  vivunt  .  Comet  A  tn  ftiblimton  nafcuntur  a'ertt  rtgtone  ,  attjut 
ides  butc  tcrr*  mo  tut  mwimt  obnoxij  fttnt  ,  fed  more  jlellarum  nobit 
crmntur  &  occidunt. 

t  [  Cum  jegro  animal]  Pro  a:gro  rtftxtntbantft  cquo.  Sententu 

f>xc  eft  :  QHemtdmodum  genus  contrnetiir  in  qualibetfyecie  ,  ut  anis»aliit 
cquo,  Uovc,porco  .  itain  fuolibct  motttcontinetnr  c/rfu/ans.reKtiftruft- 
ttir  in  qtumltbet  mundt  pl^un  wottic/tatiffiwo  •  tfttenttxmt*  una.  cum 
rel'tauii  ma?m  iftin*  globt  p.'.rtibus  a^tr/itur  in  qyrum  ab  ocdifit  m  or- 
tum  .  tta  lapu  e  turriffafltgifl  dimiftiu  dupltci  mottifertur  ,  rcclo  (f  circu- 
lari  .  Sententitt  hu^uf  ventas  dependct  ex  hypothifi  Copermciarta 

C  A  P  v  T      IX. 
vAn  terr*  plures  poflint  attnbm  mot  us,  &  de  centra  mtindi. 


„ 

S        fHinr 

V     Jj^r—  - 


pl 


-..M™ ^_^  HEWMggAHtutm i ^  Uci'iim  umltmmi  i ,    Quod  cnim  omnium 

,  *T'  revolutionum  centrum  non  lit,  motus  errantium  ma-quahs  appa- 
•^.^rM^c/K-.rcnS)  &rvanabileseoruma  terra  diflannx-  declarant,  quaimho- 
moccntro  tcrrx  circulo  non poiTunt  inrclhgi .    Pluribus  ergo  exi- 

ftcn- 


*"**»<**" 


A  "CORRKCTED"  PAGE  FROM  THE  De  Revolittio-mbiis. 

A  photographic  ^facsimile  (reduced)  of  a  page  from  Mulier's  edition 
(1617)  of  the  DC  Revolutionibus  as  "corrected"  according  to  the 
Monitnni  of  the  Congregations  in  1620.  The  first  writer  underlined  the 
passages  to  be  deleted  or  altered  with  marginal  notes  indicating  the 
changes  ordered  ;  the  second  writer  scratched  out  these  passages,  and 
wrote  out  in  full  the  changes  the  other  had  given  in  abbreviated  form. 
The  Xotcc  are  Mulier's  own,  and  so  were  not  affected  by  the  order.  The 
effect  of  the  page  is  therefore  somewhat  contradictory! 


61 


with  the  accession  to  the  papacy  in  1623  of  Cardinal  Barberini, 
as  Urban  VIII,  a  warm  admirer  and  supporter  of  his,  he  thought 
relief  was  in  sight.  He  was  further  cheered  by  a  conversation  Car- 
dinal di  Zollern  reported  having  had  with  Pope  Urban,  in  which 
his  Holiness  had  reminded  the  Cardinal  how  he  (the  Pope)  had 
defended  Copernicus  in  the  time  of  Paul  V,  and  asserted  that 
out  of  just  respect  owed  to  the  memory  of  Copernicus,  if  he  had 
been  pope  then,  he  would  not  have  permitted  his  opinion  to  be 
declared  heretical.1  Feeling  that  he  now  had  friends  in  power, 
Galileo  began  his  great  work,  Dialogo  sopra  i  Due  Sistemi 
Mvssimi  del  Mondo,  a  dialogue  in  four  "days"  in  which  three 
interlocutors  discuss  the  arguments  for  and  against  the  Coper- 
nican  theory,  though  coming  to  no  definite  conclusion.  Sagredo 
was  an  avowed  Copernican  and  Galileo's  spokesman,  Salviati 
was  openminded,  and  the  peripatetic  was  Simplicio,  appropri- 
ately named  for  the  famous  Sicilian  sixth  century  commentator 
on  Aristotle.2 

In  1630  he  brought  the  completed  manuscript  to  Riccardi, 
Master  of  the  Sacred  Palace,  for  permission  to  print  it  in  Rome. 
After  much  reading  and  re-reading  of  it  both  by  Ricardi  and 
his  associate.  Father  Visconti,  permission  was  at  length  granted 
on  condition  that  he  insert  a  preface  and  a  conclusion  practically 
dictated  by  Riccardi,  emphasizing  its  hypothetical  character.3 
The  Pope's  own  argument  was  to  be  used :  "God  is  all-powerful ; 
all  things  are  therefore  possible  to  Him;  ergo,  the  tides  cannot 
be  adduced  as  a  necessary  proof  of  the  double  motion  of  the 
earth  without  limiting  God's  omnipotence — which  is  absurd."4 
Galileo  returned  to  Florence  in  June  with  the  permission  to  print 
his  book  in  Rome.  Meanwhile  the  plague'  broke  out.  He 
decided  to  print  it  in  Florence  instead,  and  on  writing  to  Riccardi 
for  that  permission,  the  latter  asked  for  the  book  to  review  it 
again.  The  times  were  too  troublesome  to  risk  sending  it,  so  a 
compromise  was  finally  effected :  Galileo  was  to  send  the  preface 
and  conclusion  to  Rome  and  Riccardi  agreed  to  instruct  the 
Inquisitor  at  Florence  as  to  his  requirements  and  to,  authorize 
him  to  license  the  book.5  The  parts  were  not  returned  from 

'Doc.  in  Favaro:   149.         2Galileo :  Dialogo:  To  the  Reader. 
3Doc.  in  Favaro:  70.        "Fahie :  230.  6Ibid :  240. 


Rome  till  July,  1631,  and  the  book  did  not  appear  till  February 
of  the  following  year,  when  it  was  published  at  Florence  with 
all  these  licenses,  both  the  Roman  and  the  Florentine  ones. 

The  Dialogo  was  in  Italian  so  that  all  could  read  it.  It  begins 
with  an  outline  of  the  Aristotelian  system,  then  points  out  the 
resemblances  between  the  earth  and  the  planets.  The  second 
"day"  demonstrates  the  daily  rotation  of  the  earth  on  its  axis. 
The  next  claims  that  the  necessary  stellar  parallax  is  too  minute 
to  be  observed  and  discusses  the  earth's  annual  rotation.  The 
last  seeks  to  prove  this  rotation  by  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tides. 
It  is  a  brilliant  book  and  received  a  great  reception. 

The  authorities  of  the  Inquisition  at  once  examined  it  and 
denounced  Galileo  (April  17,  1633)  because  in  it  he  not  merely 
taught  and  defended  the  "condemned  doctrine  but  was  gravely 
suspected  of  firm  adherence  to  this  opinion."  Other  charges 
made  against  him  were  that  he  had  printed  the  Roman  licenses 
without  the  permission  of  the  Congregation,  that  he  had  printed 
the  preface  in  different  type  so  alienating  it  from  the  body  of 
the  book,  and  had  put  the  required  conclusion  into  the  mouth  of 
a  fool  (Simplicio),  that  in  many  places  he  had  abandoned  the 
hypothetical  treatment  and  asserted  the  forbidden  doctrine,  and 
that  he  had  dealt  indecisively  with  the  matter  though  the  Con- 
gregation had  specifically  condemned  the  Copernican  doctrine  as 
contrary  to  the  express  words  of  the  Scripture.2 

The  Pope  became  convinced  that  Galileo  had  ridiculed  him  in 
the  character  of  Simplicio  to  whom  Galileo  had  naturally  enough 
assigned  the  Pope's  syllogistic  argument.  On'  the  23rd  of 
September,  he  ordered  the  Inquisitor  of  Florence  to  notify 
Galileo  (in  the  presence  of  concealed  notary  and  witnesses  in 
case  he  were  "recusant")  to  come  to  Rome  and  appear  before 
the  Sacred  Congregation  before  the  end  of  the  next  month  ;3  the 
publication  and  sale  of  the  Dialogo  meanwhile  being  stopped  at 
great  financial  loss  to  the  printer.4  Galileo  promised  to  obey ; 
but  he  was  nearly  seventy  years  old  and  so  much  broken 
in  health  that  a  long  difficult  journey  in  the  approaching  winter 
seemed  a  great  and  unnecessary  hardship,  especially  as  he  was 


'Doc.  in  Favaro:  88-89.  2Ibid:  66.  3Ibid :  17-18.  "Galileo:  Opere,  XV,  26. 
64 


loath  to  believe  that  the  Church  authorities  were  really  hostile  to 
him.  Delays  were  granted  him  till  the  Pope  in  December  finally 
ordered  him  to  be  in  Rome  within  a  month.1  The  Florentine 
Inquisitor  replied  that  Galileo  was  in  bed  so  sick  that  three  doc- 
tors had  certified  that  he  could  not  travel  except  at  serious  risk 
to  his  life.  This  certificate  declared  that  he  suffered  from  an 
intermittent  pulse,  from  enfeebled  vital  faculties,  from  frequent 
dizziness,  from  melancholia,  weakness  of  the  stomach,  insomnia, 
shooting  pains  and  serious  hernia.1  The  answer  the  Pope  made 
to  this  was  to  order  the  Inquisitor  to  send  at  Galileo's  expense  a 
commissary  and  a  doctor  out  to  his  villa  to  see  if  he  were  feign- 
ing illness ;  if  he  were,  he  was  to  be  sent  bound  and  in  chains  to 
Rome  at  once ;  if  were  really  too  ill  to  travel,  then  he  was  to  be 
sent  in  chains  as  soon  as  he  was  convalescent  and  could  travel 
safely.2  Galileo  did  not  delay  after  that  any  longer  than  he 
could  help,  and  set  out  for  Rome  in  January  in  a  litter  supplied 
by  the  Tuscan  Grand  Duke.3  The  journey  was  prolonged  by 
quarantine,  but  upon  his  arrival  (February  13,  1633),  he  was 
welcomed  into  the  palace  of  Niccolini,  the  warm-hearted  ambas- 
sador of  the  Grand  Duke. 

Four  times  was  the  old  man  summoned  into  the  presence  of 
the  Holy  OfBce,  though  never  when  the  Pope  was  presiding.  In 
his  first  examination  held  on  the  12th  of  April,  he  told  how  he 
thought  he  had  obeyed  the  decree  of  1616  as  his  Dialogo  did  not 
defend  the  Copernican  doctrine  but  rather  confuted  it,  and  that 
in  his  desire  to  dq  the  right,  he  had  personally  submitted  the 
book  while  in  manuscript  to  the  censorship  of  the  Master  of  the 
Sacred  Palace,  and  had  accepted  all  the  changes  he  and  the  Flor- 
entine Inquisitor  had  required.  He  had  not  mentioned  the  affair 
of  1616  because  he  thought  that  order  did  not  apply  to  this  book 
in  which  he  proved  the  lack  of  validity  and  of  conclusiveness  of 
the  Copernican  arguments.4  With  remarkable,  in  fact  unique, 
consideration,  the  Holy  Office  then  assigned  Galileo  to  a  suite  of 
rooms  within  the  prisons  of  the  Holy  Office,  allowed  him  to  have 
his  servant  with  him  and  to  have  his  meals  sent  in  by  the  ambas- 
sador. On  the  30th  after  his  examination,  they  even  assigned 


'Doc.  in  Favaro:  74.      2Ibid :  75.      'Ibid:  76.      4Ibid :  80-81. 

65 


as  his  prison,  the  Ambassador's  palace,  out  of  consideration  for 
his  age  and  ill-health. 

In  his  second  appearance  (April  30),  Galileo  declared  he  had 
been  thinking  matters  over  after  re-reading  his  book  (which  he 
had  not  read  for  three  years),  and  freely  confessed  that  there 
were  several  passages  which  would  mislead  a  reader  unaware  of 
his  real  intentions,  into  believing  the  worse  arguments  were  the 
better,  and  he  blamed  these  slips  upon  his  vain  ambition  and 
delight  in  his  own  skill  in  debate.1  He  thereupon  offered  to 
write  another  "day"  or  two  more  for  the  Dialogo  in  which  he 
would  completely  refute  the  two  "strong"  Copernican  arguments 
based  on  the  sun's  spots  and  on  the  tides.2  Ten  days  later,  at  his 
third  appearance,  he  presented  a  written  statement  of  his  defence 
in  which  he  claimed  that  the  phrase  vel  quovis  tnodo  docere  was 
wholly  new  to  him,  and  that  he  had  obeyed  the  order  given  him 
by  Cardinal  Bellarmin  over  the  latter's  own  signature.  However 
he  would  make  what  amends  he  could  and  begged  the  Cardinals 
to  "consider  his  miserable  bodily  health  and  his  incessant  mental 
trouble  for  the  past  ten  months,  the  discomforts  of  a  long  hard 
journey  at  the  worst  season,  when  70  years  old,  together  with 
the  loss  of  the  greater  part  of  the  year,  and  that  therefore  such 
suffering  might  be  adequate  punishment  for  his  faults  which 
they  might  condone  to  failing  old  age.  Also  he  commended  to 
them  his  honor  and  reputation  against  the  calumnies  of  his  ill- 
wishers  who  seek  to  detract  from  his  good  name."3  To  such  a 
plight  was  the  great  man  brought !  But  the  end  was  not  yet. 

Nearly  a  month  later  (June  16),  by  order  of  the  Pope,  Galileo 
was  once  again  interrogated,  this  time  under  threat  of  torture.4 
Once  again  he  declared  the  opinion  of  Ptolemy  true  and  indubit- 
able and  said  he  did  not  hold  and  had  not  held  this  doctrine  of 
Copernicus  after  he  had  been  informed  of  the  order  to  abandon 
it.  "As  for  the  rest,"  he  added,  "I  am  in  your  hands,  do  with 
me  as  you  please."  "I  am  here  to  obey."5  Then  by  the  order 
of  the  Pope,  ensued  Galileo's  complete  abjuration  on  his  knees 
in  the  presence  of  the  full  Congregation,  coupled  with  his  prom- 

~TDo~c.  in  Favaro:  83.      2Ibid :  84.      'Ibid:  85-87.      4Ibid:  101. 
8Doc.  in  Favaro :  101. 

66 


ise  to  denounce  other  heretics  (/.  e.,  Copernicans).1  In  addi- 
tion, because  he  was  guilty  of  the  heresy  of  having  held  and 
believed  a  doctrine  declared  and  defined  as  contrary  to  the 
Scriptures,  he  was  sentenced  to  "formal  imprisonment"  at  the 
will  of  the  Congregation,  and  to  repeat  the  seven  penitential 
Psalms  every  week  for  three  years.2 

At  Galileo's  earnest  request,  his  sentence  was  commuted 
almost  at  once,  to  imprisonment  first  in  the  archiepiscopal  palace 
in  Siena  (from  June  30-December  1),  then  in  his  own  villa  at 
Arcetri,  outside  Florence,  though  under  strict  orders  not  to  re- 
ceive visitors  but  to  live  in  solitude.3  In  the  spring  his  increas- 
ing illness  occasioned  another  request  for  greater  liberty  in  order 
to  have  the  necessary  visits  from  the  doctor ;  but  on  March  23, 
1634,  this  was  denied  him  with  a  stern  command  from  the  Pope 
to  refrain  from  further  petitions  lest  the  Sacred  Congregation 
be  compelled  to  recall  him  to  their  prisons  in  Rome.4 

The  rule  forbidding  visitors  seems  not  to  have  been  rigidly 
enforced  all  the  time,  for  Milton  visited  him,  "a  prisoner  of  the 
Inquisition"  in  1638;5  yet  Father  Castelli  had  to  write  to  Rome 
for  permission  to  visit  him  to  learn  his  newly  invented  method 
of  rinding  longitude  at  sea.6  When  in  Florence  on  a  very  brief 
stay  to  see  his  doctor,  Galileo  had  to  have  the  especial  consent 
of  the  Inquisitor  in  order  to  attend  mass  at  Easter.  He  won 
approval  from  the  Holy  Congregation,  however,  by  refusing 
to  receive  some  gifts  and  letters  brought  him  by  some  German 
merchants  from  the  Low  Countries.7  He  was  then  totally  blind, 
but  he  dragged  out  his  existence  until  January  8,  1642  (the  year 
of  Newton's  birth),  when  he  died.  As  the  Pope  objected  to  i 
public  funeral  for  a  man  sentenced  by  the  Holy  Office,  he  was 
buried  without  even  an  epitaph.8  The  first  inscription  was  made 
31  years  later,  and  in  1737,  his  remains  were  removed  to  Santa 
Croce  after  the  Congregation  had  first  been  asked  if  such  action 
would  be  unobjectionable.9 

Pope  Urban  had  no  intention  of  concealing  Galileo's  abjura- 

'Doc.  in  Favaro :  146.        2Ibid :  145.        'Ibid :  103,  129.        4Ibid :  134. 
"Milton:  Areopagitica:  35.         8Doc.  in  Favaro:  135.         7Ibid:  137. 
'Fahie:  402. 
"Doc.  in  Favaro:  138;  and  Fahie:  402. 

67 


tion  and  sentence.  Instead,  he  ordered  copies  of  both  to  be  sent 
to  all  inquisitors  and  papal  nuncios  that  they  might  notify  all 
their  clergy  and  especially  all  the  professors  of  mathematics  and 
philosophy  within  their  districts,  particularly  those  at  Florence, 
Padua  and  Pisa.1  This  was  done  during  the  summer  and  fall  of 
1633.  From  Wilna  in  Poland,  Cologne,  Paris,  Brussels,  and 
Madrid,  as  well  as  from  all  Italy,  came  the  replies  of  the  papal 
officials  stating  that  the  order  had  been  obeyed.2  He  evidently 
intended  to  leave  no  ground  for  a  remark  like  that  of  Fromun- 
dus  about  the  earlier  condemnation. 

Galileo  was  thus  brought  so  low  that  the  famous  remark, 
''Eppur  si  muove,"  legend  reports  him  to  have  made  as  he  rose 
to  his  feet  after  his  abjuration,  is  incredible  in  itself,  even  if  it 
had  appeared  in  history  earlier  than  its  first  publication  in  1761.:i 
But  his  discoveries  and  his  fight  in  defence  of  the  system  did 
much  both  to  strengthen  the  doctrine  itself  and  to  win  adherents 
to  it.  The  appearance  of  the  moon  as  seen  through  a  telescope 
destroyed  the  Aristotelian  notion  of  the)  perfection  of  heavenly 
bodies.^  Jupiter's  satellites  gave  proof  by  analogy  of  the  solar 
system,  though  on  a  smaller  scale.  The  discovery  of  the  phases 
of  Venus  refuted  a  hitherto  strong  objection  to  the  Copernican 
system ;  and  the  discovery  of  the  spots  on  the  sun  led  to  his  later 
discovery  of  the  sun's  axial  rotation,  another  proof  by  analogy 
of  the  axial  rotation  of  the  earth.  Yet  he  swore  the  Ptolemaic 
conception  was  the  true  one. 

The  abjuration  of  Galileo  makes  a  pitiful  page  in  the  history 
of  thought  and  has  been  a  fruitful  source  of  controversy4  for 
nearly  three  centuries.  He  was  unquestionably  a  sincere  and 
loyal  Catholic,  and  accordingly  submitted  to  the  punishment  de- 
creed by  the  authorities.  But  in  his  abjuration  he  plainly  per- 
jured himself,  however  fully  he  may  be  pardoned  for  it  because 
of  the  extenuating  circumstances.  Had  he  not  submitted  and 
been  straitly  imprisoned,  if  not  burned,  the  world  would  indeed 


1Doc.  in  Favaro:   101,   103. 

2Ibid:  104-132. 

3Fahie :  325,  note. 

Tor  full  statement,  see  Martin:   133-207. 


68 


have  been  the  poorer  by  the  loss  of  his  greatest  work,  the  Dialo- 
c/hi  delle  Nuove  Scienze,  which  he  did  not  publish  until  1636.1 

Even  more  hotly  debated  has  been  the  action  of  the  Congrega- 
tions in  condemning  the  Copernican  doctrine,  and  sentencing 
Galileo  as  a  heretic  for  upholding  it.2  Though  both  Paul  V  and 
Urban  VIII  spurred  on  these  actions,  neither  signed  either  the 
decree  or  the  sentence,  nor  was  the  latter  present  at  Galileo's 
examinations.  Pope  Urban  would  prefer  not  so  openly  to  have 
changed  his  position  from  that  of  tolerance  to  his  present  one  of 
active  opposition  caused  partly  by  his  piqued  self-respect3  and 
partly  by  his  belief  that  this  heresy  was  more  dangerous  even 
than  that  of  Luther  and  Calvin.4  It  is  a  much  mooted  question 
whether  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  was  involved  or  not. 
Though  the  issue  at  stake  was  not  one  of  faith,  nor  were  the 
decrees  issued  by  the  Pope  ex  cathedra,  but  by  a  group  of  Cardi- 
nals, a  fallible  body,  yet  they  had  the  full  approbation  of  the 
Popes,  and  later  were  published  in  the  Index  preceded  by  a 
papal  bull  excommunicating  those  who  did  not  obey  the  decrees 
contained  therein.5  It  seems  to  be  a  matter  of  the  letter  as 
opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  law.  De  Morgan  points  out  that  con- 
temporary opinion  as  represented  by  Fromundus,  an  ardent 
opponent  of  Galileo,  did  not  consider  the  Decree  of  the  Index  or 
of  the  Inquisition  as  a  declaration  of  the  Church.6 — a  position 
which  Galileo  himself  may  have  held,  thus  explaining  his  practi- 
cal disregard  of  the  decree  of  1616  after  he  was  persuaded  the 
authorities  were  more  favorably  disposed  to  him.  But  M. 
Martin,  himself  a  Catholic,  thinks7  that  theoretically  the  Congre- 
gations could  punish  Galileo  only  for  disobedience  of  the  secret 
order, — but  even  so  his  book  had  been  examined  and  passed  by 
the  official  censors. 

When  the  Index  was  revised  under  Pope  Benedict  XIV  in 
1757,  largely  through  the  influence  of  the  Jesuit  astronomer 
Boscovich,  so  it  is  said,8  the  phrase  prohibiting  all  books  teach- 


'Gebler:  263.        2See  Gebler :  244-247;  White:  I,  159-167;  also  Martin. 
"Martin:   136;  and  Salusbury:  Math.  Coll.  "To  the  reader." 
'Galileo :  Opere,  XV,  25.      'Putnam  :  I,  310.      6DeMorgan :  I,  98. 
7Martin:  140. 
*Cath.  Ency.:   "Boscovich." 

69 


ing  the  immobility  of  the  sun,  and  the  mobility  of  the  earth  was 
omitted  from  the  decrees.1  But  in  1820,  the  Master  of  the 
Sacred  Palace  refused  to  permit  the  publication  in  Rome  of  a 
text-book  on  astronomy  by  Canon  Settele,  who  thereupon 
appealed  to  the  Congregations.  They  granted  his  request  in 
August,  and  two  years  later,  issued  a  decree  approved  by  Pope 
Pius  VII  ordering  the  Master  of  the  Sacred  Palace  in  future 
"not  to  refuse  license  for  publication  of  books  dealing  with  the 
mobility  of  the  earth  and  the  immobility  of  the  sun  according  to 
the  common  opinion  of  modern  astronomers"  on  that  ground 
alone.2  The  next  edition  of  the  Index  Librorum  Prohibitorum 
(1835)  did  not  contain  the  works  of  Copernicus,  Galileo,  Fos- 
carini,  a  Stunica  and  Kepler  which  had  appeared  in  every  edi- 
tion up  to  that  time  since  their  condemnation  in  1616,  (Kepler's 
in  1619). 

'Doc.  in  Favaro:  159.        2Ibid:  30,  31. 


70 


T 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE  OPPOSITION  AND  THEIR  ARGUMENTS. 

I  HE  Protestant  leaders  had  rejected  the  Copernican  doctrine  (i 
as  contrary  to  the  Scriptures.  The  Roman  Congregations  had  | 
now  condemned  Galileo  for  upholding  this  doctrine  after  they 
had  prohibited  it  for  the  same  reasons.  These  objections  are 
perhaps  best  summarized  in  that  open  letter  Foscarini  wrote  to 
the  general  of  his  order,  the  Carmelities,  at  Naples  in  January, 
161 5,1 — the  letter  that  was  absolutely  prohibited  by  the  Index 
in  March,  1616.  He  gave  these  arguments  and  answered  them 
lest,  as  he  said,  "whilst  otherwise  the  opinion  is  favored  with 
much  probability,  it  be  found  in  reality  to  be  extremely  repug- 
nant (as  at  first  sight  it  seems)  not  only  to  physical  reasons  and 
common  principles  received  on  all  hands  (which  cannot  do  so 
much  harm),  but  also  (which  would  be  of  far  worse  conse- 
quence) to  many  authorities  of  Sacred  Scripture.  Upon  which 
account  many  at  first  looking  into  it  explode  it  as  the  most  fond 
paradox  and  monstrous  capriccio  that  ever  was  heard  of."  "Yet 
many  modern  authors,"  he  says  further  on,  "are  induced  to  fol- 
low it,  but  with  much  hesitancy  and  fear,  in  regard  that  it 
seemeth  in  their  opinion  so  to  contradict  the  Holy  Scriptures 
that  it  cannot  possibly  be  reconciled  to  them."  Consequently  Fos- 
carini argued  that  the  theory  is  either  true  or  false;  if  false,  it 
ought  not  to  be  divulged;  if  true,  the  authority  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  will  not  oppose  it;  neither  does  one  truth  contradict 
another.  So  he  turned  to  the  Bible. 

He  found  that  six  groups  of  authorities  seemed  to  oppose  this 
doctrine.  (1)  Those  stating  that  the  earth  stands  fast,  as  Eccles. 
1:4.  (2)  Those  stating,  that  the  sun  moves  and  revolves ;  as 
Psalm  XIX,  Isaiah  XXXVIII,  and  the  miracle  in  Josh.  X  :12-14. 
(3)  Those  speaking  of  the  heaven  above  and  the  earth  beneath, 
as  in  Joel  II.  Also  Christ  came  dmvn  from  Heaven.  (4)  Those 


aln  Salisbury:  Math.  Coll;  I,  471-503. 

71 


authorities  who  place  Hell  at  the  center  of  the  world,  a  "common 
opinion  of  divines,"  because  it  ought  to  be  in  the  lowest  part  of 
the  world,  that  is,  at  the  center  of  the  sphere.  Then  by  the  Cop- 
ernican  hypothesis,  Hell  must  either  be  in  the  sun;  or,  if  in  the 
earth,  if  the  earth  should  move  about  the  sun,  then  Hell  within 
the  earth  would  be  in  Heaven,  and  nothing  could  be  more  ab- 
surd. (5)  Those  authorities  opposing  Heaven  to  earth  and 
earth  to  Heaven,  as  in  Gen.  I,  Mat.  VI,  etc.  Since  the  two  are 
always  mutually  opposed  to  each  other,  and  Heaven  undoubt- 
edly refers  to  the  circumference,  earth  must  necessarily  be  at 
the  center.  (6)  Those  authorities  ("rather  of  fathers  and  divines 
than  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures")  who  declare  that  after  the 
Day  of  Judgment,  the  sun  shall  stand  immovable  in  the  east 
and  the  moon  in  west. 

Foscarini  then  lays  down  in  answer  six  maxims,  the  first  of 
which_js^  that  things  attributed  to  God  must  be  expounded 
metaphorically  according  to  our  manner  of  understanding  and 
of  common  speech.  The  other  maxims  are  more  metaphysical, 
as  that  everything  in  the  universe,  whether  corruptible  or  in- 
corruptible, obeys  a  fixed  law  of  its  nature ;  so,  for  example, 
Fortune  is  -always  fickle.  In  concluding  his  defense,  he  claims 
among  other  things,,  that  the  Copernician  is  a  more  admirable 
hypothesis  than  the  Ptolemaic,  and  that  it  is  an  easy  way  into 
astronomy  and  philosophy.  Then  he  adds  that  there  may  be  an 
analogy  between  the  seven-branched  candle-stick  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  seven  planets  around  the  sun,  and  possibly 
the  arrangement  of  the  seeds  in  the  "Indian  Figg,"  in  the  pome- 
granate and  in  grapes  is  all  divine  evidence  of  the  solar  sys- 
tem. With  such  an  amusing  reversion  to  mediaeval  analogy  his 
spirited  letter  ends. 

Some  or  all  of  these  scriptural  arguments  appear  in  most  of 
the  attacks  on  the  doctrine  even  before  its  condemnation  by  the 
Index  in  1616  was  widely  known.  Besides  these  objections, 
Aristotle's  and  Ptolemy's  statements  were  endlessly  repeated 
with  implicit  faith  in  their  accuracy.  Even  Sir  Francis  Bacon 
(1567-1631)  with  all  his  modernity  of  thought,  failed  in  this 
instance  to  recognize  the  value  of  the  new  idea  and,  despite  his 


72 


interest  in  Galileo's  discoveries,  harked  back  to  the  time-hon- 
ored objections.  At  first  mild  in  his  opposition,  he  later  be- 
came emphatically  opposed  to  it.  In  the  Advancement  of 
Learning1  (1604),  he  speaks  of  it  as  a  possible  explanation  of 
the  celestial  phenomena  according  to  astronomy  but  as  con- 
trary to  natural  philosophy.  Some  fifteen  years  later  in  the 
Novum  Organon*  he  asserts  that  the  assumption  of  the  earth's 
movement  cannot  be  allowed;  for,  as  he  says  in  his  Thema 
Coeli?  at  that  time  he  considered  the  opinion  that  the  earth  is 
stationary  the  truer  one.  Finally,  in  his  De  Augmentis  Scien- 
tiarum*  (1622-1623)  he  speaks  of  the  old  notions  of  the  solid- 
ity of  the  heavens,  etc.,  and  adds,  "It  is  the  absurdity  of  these 
opinions  that  has  driven  men  to  the  diurnal  motion;  which  I 
am  convinced  is  most  false."  He  gives  his  reasons  in  the 
Descriptio  Globi  Intellectually  (ch.  5-6)  :  "In  favor  of  the 
earth  [as  the  center  of  the  world]  we  have  the  evidence  of  our 
sight,  and  an  inveterate  opinion;  and  most  of  all  this,  that  as 
dense  bodies  are  contracted  into  a  narrow  compass,  and  rare 
bodies  are  widely  diffused  (and  the  area  of  every  circle  is 
contracted  to  the  center)  it  seems  to  follow  almost  of  necessity 
that  the  narrow  space  about  the  middle  of  the  world  be  set 
down  as  the  proper  and  peculiar  place  for  dense  bodies."  The 
sun's  claims  to  such  a  situation  are  satisfied  through  having  two 
satellites  of  its  own,  Venus  and  Mercury.  Copernicus's  scheme 
is  inconvenient;  it  overloads  the  earth  with  a  triple  motion;  it 
creates  a  difficulty  by  separating  the  sun  from  the  number  of  the 
planets  with  which  it  has  much  in  common  ;  and  the  "introduction 
of  so  much  immobility  into  nature  .  .  .  and  making  the  moon 
revolve  around  the  earth  in  an  epicycle,  and  some  other  as- 
sumptions of  his  are  the  speculations  of  one  who  cares  not 
what  fictions  he  introduces  into  nature,  provided  his  calcula- 
tions answer."  The  total  absence  of  all  reference  to  the  Scrip- 
tures is  the  unique  and  refreshing  part  of  Bacon's  thought. 

All  the  more  common  arguments  against  the  diurnal  rotation 
of  the  earth  are  well  stated  in  an  interesting  little  letter  (1619) 


>Bk.  II;  sec.  8,  §1.        2Bk.  II,  ch.  46.        *Phil.  Works:  705. 
4Bk..  III.      *Phil.  Works:  684-685. 


73 


by  Thomas  Feyens,  or  Fienus,  a  professor  at  the  school  of 
medicine  in  the  University  of  Lou  vain.1  Thus  Catholic,  Prot- 
estant, and  unbeliever,  Feyens,  Melancthon,  Bacon  and  Bodin, 
all  had  recourse  to  the  same  arguments  to  oppose  this  seemingly 
absurd  doctrine. 

Froidmont,  or  Fromundus,  the  good  friend  and  colleague 
of  Feyens  at  Louvain,  was  also  much  interested  in  these  mat- 
ters, so  much  so  that  some  thought  he  had  formerly  accepted 
the  Copernican  doctrine  and  "only  fled  back  into  the  camp  of 
Aristotle  and  Ptolemy  through  terror  at  the  decree  of  the  S. 
Congregation  of  Cardinals."2  His  indignant  denial  of  this 
imputation  of  turn-coat  in  1634  is  somewhat  weakened  by  ref- 
erence to  his  Saturnalitice  Coen<zz  (1615)  in  which  he  sug- 
gests that,  if  the  Copernican  doctrine  is  admitted,  then  Hell 
may  be  in  the  sun  at  the  center  of  the  universe  rather  than  in 
the  earth,  in  order  to  be  as 'far  as  possible  from  Paradise.  He 
also  refers  in  his  De  Cometv  (1618)  to  the  remark  of  Justus- 
Lipsius4  that  this  paradox  was  buried  with  Copernicus,,  saying 
"You  are  mistaken,  O  noble  scholar :  it  lives,  and  it  is  full  of 
vigor  even  now  among  many/'5  thus  apparently  not  seeing  seri- 
ous objection  to  it.  M.  Monchamp  summarizes  Froidmont's  point 
of  view  as  against  Aristotle  and  Ptolemy,  half  for  Copernicus 
and  wholly  for  Tycho  Brahe. 

Froidmont's  best  known  books  are  the  two  he  wrote  in 
answer  to  a  defense  of  the  Copernican  position  first  by  Philip 
Lansberg,  then  by  his  son.  The  Ant-Aristarchus  sive  Orbis 
Terra  Immobilis,  Liber  unicus  in  quo  decretum  S.  Congrega- 
tionis  S.  R.  E.  Cardinal,  an.  1616,  adversus  Pythagorico-Coper- 
nicanous  editum,  defenditur,  appeared  in  1631  before  Galileo's 
condemnation.  The  Jesuit  Cavalieri  wrote  to  Galileo  in  May 
about  it  thus  :6  "I  have  run  it  through,  and  verily  it  states  the 
Copernican  theory  and  the  arguments  in  its  favor  with  so  much 
skill  and  efficacy  that  he  seems  to  have  understood  it  very  well 
indeed.  But  he  refutes  them  with  so  little  force  that  he  seems 

translated  in  Appendix  C.     For  criticism,  see  Monchamp :  58-64. 
2Fromundus;   Vesta;  Ad  Lectorem.  3Monchamp:  41. 

4Justus-Lipsius :  IV,  947.  'Monchamp:  48.  elbid:  94. 

74 


rather  to  be  of  an  opinion  contrary  to  that  expressed  in  the  title 
of  his  book.  I  have  given  it  to  M.  Cesar.  If  you  wish  it,  I 
will  have  it  sent  to  you.  The  arguments  he  brings  against 
Copernicus  are  those  you  have  so  masterfully  stated  and 
answered  in  your  Dialogo"  Nearly  a  year  later,  Galileo  wrote 
to  Gassendi  and  Diodati  that  he  had  received  this  book  a  month 
before  and,  although  he  had  been  unable  to  read  much  of  it  on 
account  of  his  eye  trouble,  it  seemed  to  him  that  of  all  the 
opponents  of  Copernicus  whom  he  had  seen,  Fromundus  was 
the  most  sensible  and  efficient.1  Again  he  wrote  in  January, 
1633,  regretting  that  he  had  not  seen  it  till  six  months  after  he 
had  published  his  dialogues,  for  he  would  have  both  praised  it 
and  commented  upon  certain  points.  "As  for  Fromundus  (who 
however  shows  himself  to  be  a  man  of  great  talent)  I  wish  he 
had  not  fallen  into  what  seems  to  me  a  truly  serious  error, 
although  a  rather  common  one,  in  order  to  refute  the  Copernican 
opinion,  of  beginning  by  poking  scorn  and  ridicule  at  those  who 
consider  it  true,  and  then  (what  seems  to  me  still  less  becoming) 
of  basing  his  attack  chiefly  on  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  finally  of  deducing  from  this  that  in  this  respect  it  is  an 
opinion  little  short  of  heretical.  To  argue  in  this  way  is  clearly 
not  praiseworthy;"  for  as  Galileo  goes  on  to  show,  if  the  Scrip- 
tures are  the  word  of  God,  the  heavens  themselves  are  his  handi- 
work. Why  is  the  one  less  noble  than  the  other?2 

Froidmont  replied  in  1633  to  Lansberg's  reply  with  his  sec- 
ond attack,  Vesta,  sive  Ant-Aristarchi  V index,  in  which  he  laid 
even  more  emphasis  upon  the  theological  and  scriptural  objec- 
tions. Yet,  in  ignorance  of  Galileo's  condemnation,  he  con- 
Aiders  the  charge  of  heresy  too  strong.  "The  partisans  of  this 
system  do  not  after  all  disdain  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
although  they  appear  to  interpret  it  in  a  way  rather  in  their 
favor."  He  also,  and  rightly,  denies  the  existence  at  that  time 
of  any  conclusive  proof.3 

In  spite  of  Froidmont's  position,  the  University  of  Louvain 
was  not  cordial  in  its  response  to  the  papal  nuncio's  announce- 


'Galileo:  Opere:  XV,  25.  'Ibid :  XIV,  340-341. 

'Monchamp:  107-108. 


75 


ment  in  September,  1633,  of  Galileo's  abjuration  and  sentence, 
in  marked  contrast  to  the  reply  sent  by  the  neighboring  univer- 
sity of  Douay.  The  latter  body,  in  a  letter  signed  by  Mat- 
thseus  Kellison  (Sept.  7,  1633),  declared  the  condemned 
theory  "should  be  discarded  and  hissed  from  the  schools;  and 
that  in  the  English  College  there  in  Douay,  this  paradox  never 
had  been  approved  and  never  would  be,  but  had  always  been 
opposed  and  always  would  be."1 

This,  opposition  in  the  universities  in  Belgium  continued 
throughout  the  century  to  be  based  not  so  much  on  scientific 
grounds  as  upon  the  Bible.  This  may  be  seen  in  the  manu- 
script reports  of  lectures  in  physics  and  astronomy  given  at 
Liege  in  1662,  and  at  Lou  vain  between  1650-1660,  though  one 
of  these  does  not  mention  the  decree  of  1616.2  The  general 
congregation  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  in  1650  drew  up  a  list 
of  the  propositions  proscribed  in  their  teaching,  though,  ac- 
cording to  M.  Monchamp  (himself  a  Catholic)  not  thereby 
implying  a  denial  of  any  probability  they  might  have.  The  35th 
proposition  ran:  "Terra  movetur  motu  diurno;  planetae,  tan- 
quam  viventia,  moventur  ab  intrinseco.  Firmamentum  stat.'"' 
The  Jesuit  astronomer  Tacquet  in  his  textbook  (Antwerp, 
1669)  respected  this  decision,  acknowledging  that  no  scientific 
s  reason  kept  him  from  defending  the  theory,  but  solely  his  re- 
spect for  the  Christian  faith.4 

One  of  the  pupils  of  the  Jesuits  revolted  however.  Martin 
van  Welden,  appointed  professor  of  mathematics  at  Louvain 
in  1683,  debated  a  series  of  theses  in  January,  1691.  The  sec- 
ond read :  "Indubitum  est  systhema  Copernici  de  planetarum 
motu  circa  sole;  inter  quos  merito  terra  censetur."  His  refusal 
to  alter  the  wording  except  to  change  indubitum  to  cerium 
brought  on  a  stormy  controversy  within  the  faculty  which  even- 
tually reached  the  Council  of  Brabant  and  the  papal  nuncio  at 
Brussels.5  The  professor  finally  submitted,  though  he  was  not 
forbidden  to  teach  the  Copernician  system,  nor  did  the  faculty 
affirm  its  falsity,  merely  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  Roman 


'Doc.  in  Favaro:  120-121,  132,  133.  2Monchamp:  125,  143. 

"Ibid:   148-149.  4Ibid  :   152-153.  6Ibid  :   182-234. 

76 


decree.  The  professor  re-opened  the  matter  with  a  similar 
thesis  in  July,  thereby  arousing  a  second  controversy  that  this 
time  reached  even  the  Privy  Council.  Once  more  he  submitted, 
but  solely  with  an  apology  for  having  caused  a  disagreement. 
His  new  theses  in  1695  contained  no  explicit  mention  of  the 
Copernician  system;  at  least  he  had  learned  tact.1 

The  absorption  of  the  German  states  in  the  Thirty  Years 
War  may  account  for  the  apparent  absence  there  of  Copernican 
discussion  until  after  the  Peace  of  Westphalia.  A  certain 
Georgius  Ludovicus  Agricola  gave  a  syllogistic  refutation  of 
the  doctrine  as  his  disputation  at  the  university  of  Wittenberg 
in  1665.  While  he  acknowledged  its  ingenuity,  he  preferred  to 
it  "the  noblest,  truest,  and  divinely  inspired  system"  of  Tycho 
Brahe.  The  four  requirements  of  an  acceptable  astronomical 
hypothesis  according  to  this  student  are :  ( 1 )  That  it  suit  all  the 
observations  of  all  the  ages;  (2)  That  as  far  as  possible,  it  be 
simple  and  clear;  (3)  That  it  be  not  contrary  to  the  principles 
of  physics  and  optics;  (4)  That  it  be  not  contrary  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  As  the  Copernican  theory  does  not  meet  all;  these 
tests,  it  is  unsatisfactory.  Incidentally,  he  considers  it  "ridic- 
ulous to  include  the  earth  among  the  planets,  because  then  we 
would  be  living  in  Heaven,  forsooth,  since  we  would  be  in  a 
star."  He  decides  finally  "that  the  decree  of  March,  1616, 
condemning  the  Copernican  opinion  was  not  unjust,  nor  was 
Galileo  unfairly  treated."2 

Two  years  later  appeared  a  text-book  at  Nurnberg,  by  a 
Jesuit  father,  based  on  the  twelfth  century  Sacrobosco  treatise 
and  without  a  single  reference  so  far  as  1  could  find,  to  Coper- 
nicus!3 Another  publication  of  the  same  year  was  a  good  deal 
more  up  to  date.  This  was  a  kind  of  catechism  in  German  by 
Johann-Henrich  Voight4  explaining  for  the  common  people 
various  scientific  and  mathematical  problems  in  a  hundred  ques- 
tions and  answers.  He  himself,  a  Royal  Swedish  astronomer, 
obviously  preferred  the  Tychonic  system,  but  he  left  his  reader 

^onchamp:  321.  2Agricola:  Disputatio. 

'Schotto:   Organum  Mathematicum    (1667). 

*Voight :  Dcr  Kunstgunstigen  Einfalt  Mathcmatischer  Raritdten  Erstcs 
Hmidert.  (Hamburg,  1667). 

77 


free  to  choose  between  that  and  the  Copernican  one,  both  of 
S  which  he  carefully  explained.1  He  made  an  interesting  sum- 
mary in  parallel  columns  of  the  arguments  for  and  against  the 
earth's  motion  which  it  seems  worth  while  to  repeat  as  an  in- 
stance of  what  the  common  people  were  taught: 

Reasons  for  asserting  the  earth  Reasons  for  the  belief  that  the 

is   motionless:  earth  is  moved: 

1.  David  in  Psalm  89:  God  has  1.  The    sun,    the    most    excel- 


founded  the  earth  and  it  shall 
not  be  moved. 

2.  Joshua    bade    the    sun    stand 
still — which     would     not     be 
notable  were  it  not  already  at 
rest. 

3.  The  earth  is  the  heaviest  ele- 
ment, therefore  it  more  prob- 
ably is  at  rest. 

4.  Everything  loose  on  the  earth 

seeks  its  rest  on  the  earth,  3.  That  Joshua  bade  the  sun 
why  should  not  the  whole  stand  still  Moses  wrote  for 
earth  itself  be  at  rest?  the  people  in  accordance 

5.  We  always   see  half   of    the        with    the    popular    miscon- 
heavens  and   the  fixed   stars        ception. 

also    in   a   great   half    circle,  4.  As   the  planets   are  each   a 
-  which  we  could  not  see  if  the        special  created  thing  in  the 
earth   moved,   and    especially 
if    it   declined    to   the   north 
and  south. 


lent,  the  greatest  and  the 
midmost  star,  rightly  stands 
still  like  a  king  while  all 
the  other  stars  with  the 
earth  swing  round  it. 
2.  That  you  believe  that  the 
heavens  revolve  is  due  to 
ocular  deception  similar  to 
that  of  a  man  on  a  ship 
leaving  shore. 


heavens,   so  the   earth   is   a 


similar    creation 
\Jarly  revolves. 


and    simi- 


6.  A    stone    or    an    arrow    shot  5.  The   sun   fitly   rests   at   the 
straight     up     falls     straight        center  as  the  heart  does  in 
down.     But     if     the     earth 
turned  under  it,  from  west  to 


the    middle    of    the    human 
body. 


east,  it  must  fall  west  of  its  6.  Since  the  earth  has  in  itself 


its  especial  centrum,  a  stone 
or  an  arrow  falls  freely  out 
of  the  air  again  to  its  own 
centrum  as  do  all  earthly 
things. 


starting  point. 

7.  In    such    revolutions    houses 
and    towers    would     fall     in 
heaps. 

8.  High  and  low  tide  could  not 

exist;  the  flying  of  birds  and  7.  The  earth  can  move  five 
the  swimming  of  fish  would  miles  in  a  second  more 
be  hindered  and  all  would  be  readily  than  the  sun  can  go 
in  a  state  of  dizziness.  forty  miles  in  the  same  time- 

And  similarly  on  both  sides.2 

'Voight :  op.  cit.:  28.  2Ibid  :  30-31. 

78 


Another  writer  preferring  the  Tychonic  scheme  was  Longo- 
montanus,  whose  Astronomica  Danica  (Amsterdam,  1640)  up- 
held this  theory  because  it  "obviates  the  absurdities  of  the 
Copernican  hypothesis  and  most  aptly  corresponds  to  celestial 
appearances,"  and  also  because  it  is  "midway  between  that  and 
the  Ptolemaic  one."1  Even  though  he  speaks  of  the  "apparent 
motion  of  the  sun,"  he  attributed  diurnal  motion  to  the  heavens, 
and  believed  the  earth  was  at  the  center  of  the  universe  be- 
cause (1),  from  the  account  of  the  Creation,  the  heaven  and  the 
earth  were  first  created,  and  what  could  be  more  likely  than  that 
the  heavens  should  fill  the  space  between  the  center  (the  earth) 
and  the  circumference?  (2)  and  because  of  the  incredibly 
enormous  interval  between  the  sphere  of  the  fixed  stars  and  the 
earth  necessitated  by  Copernican  doctrine.2 

The  high- water  mark  of  opposition  after  Galileo's  condem- 
nation was  reached  in  the  Almagestuni  Novum  (Bologna,  1651) 
by  Father  Riccioli  of  the  Society  of  Jesus.  It  was  the  author- 
itative answer  of  that  order,  the  leaders  of  the  Church  in  mat- 
ters of  education,  to  the  challenges  of  the  literary  world  for 
a  justification  of  the  condemnation  of  the  Copernican  doc- 
trine and  of  Galileo  for  upholding  it.  Father  Riccioli  had  been 
professor  of  philosophy  and  of  mathematics  for  six  years  and 
of  theology  for  ten  when  by  order  of  his  superiors,  he  was 
released  from  his  lectureship  to  prepare  a  book  containing  all 
the  material  he  could  gather  together  on  this  great  contro- 
versy of  the  age.3  He  wrote  it  as  he  himself  said,  as  "an 
apologia  for  the  Sacred  Congregation  of  the  Cardinals  who 
officially  pronounced  these  condemnations,  not  so  much  because 
I  thought  such  great  height  and  eminence  needed  this  at  my 
hands  but  especially  in  behalf  of  Catholics;  also  out  of  the 
love  of  truth  to  which  every  non-Catholic,  even,  should  be  per- 
suaded ;  and  from  a  certain  notable  zeal  and  eagerness  for  the 
preservation  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  intact  and  unimpaired; 
and  lastly  because  of  that  reverence  and  devotion  which  I  owe 


^ongomontanus :  Op.  cit.:  162. 
"Longomontanus  :  Op.  cit. :  158. 
"Riccioli :  Aim.  Nov.;  Praefatio,  I,  xviii. 

79 


from  my  particular  position  toward  the  Holy,  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church."1 

This  monumental  work,  the  most  important  literary  produc- 
tion of  the  Society  in  the  17th  century,-  is  abundant  witness  to 
Riccioli's  remarkable  erudition  and  industry.  Nearly  one- 
fifth  of  the  total  bulk  of  the  two  huge  volumes  is  devoted  to  a 
statement  of  the  Copernican  controversy.  This  is  prefaced  by 
a  brief  account  of  his  own  theory  of  the  universe — the  inven- 
tion of  which  is  another  proof  of  the  ability  of  the  man — for 
his  scientific  training  prevented  his  acceptance  of  the  Aristo- 
telian-Ptolemaic theory  in  the  light  of  Galileo's  discoveries;  his 
position  as  a  Jesuit  and  a  faithful  son  of  the  Church  precluded 
him  from  adopting  the  system  condemned  by  its  representatives ; 
and  Tycho  Brahe's  scheme  was  not  wholly  to  his  liking.  There- 
for he  proposed  an  adaptation  of  the  last-named,  more  in  ac- 
cordance, as  he  thought,  with  the  facts.3  Where  Tycho  had  all 
the  planets  except  the  earth  and  the  moon  encircle  the  sun,  and 
that  in  turn,  together  with  the  moon  and  the  sphere  of  the  fixed 
stars,  sweep  around  the  earth  as  the  center  of  the  universe,  Ric- 
cioli  made  only  Mars,  Mercury  and  Venus  encircle  the  sun, — 
Mars  with  an  orbit  the  radius  of  which  included  the  earth  with- 
in its  sweep,  the  other  two  planets  with  orbital  radii  shorter  than 
that  of  the  sun,  and  so  excluding  the  earth.  This  he  did,  ( 1 )  be- 
cause both  Jupiter  and  Saturn  have  their  own  kingdoms  in  the 
heavens,  and  Mars,  Mercury  and  Venus  are  but  satellites  of 
the  sun;  (2)  because  there  are  greater  varieties  of  eccentricity 
among  these  three  than  the  other  two;  (3)  because  Saturn  and 
Jupiter  are  the  greatest  planets  and  with  the  sphere  of  the  fixed 
stars  move  more  slowly;  (4)  Mars  belongs  with  the  sun  because 
of  their  related  movements ;  and  (5)  because  it  is  likely  that  one 
of  the  planets  would  have  much  in  common  both  with  Saturn 
and  Jupiter  and  with  Mercury  and  Venus  also.3 

Then  he  takes  up  the  attack  upon  the  Copernican  doctrine.  M . 
Delambre  summarizes  and  comments  upon  57  of  his  arguments 


'Riccioli:  Aim.  Nov.:  II,  496. 

~Cath.  Ency.;  "Riccioli,"  and  Walsh:   Catholic  Churchmen  in   Science: 
200.   (2nd  series,  1909.) 
8Riccioli:  Aim.  Nov.:  II,  288-289;  see  frontispiece. 

80 


against  it,1  and  Riccioli  himself  claims2  to  have  stated  "40  new 
arguments  in  behalf  of  Copernicus  and  77  against  him."  But 
these  sound  somewhat  familiar  to  the  reader  of  anti-Copernican 
literature :  as,  for  instance,  ''which  is  more  natural,  straight  or 
circular  movement?"  Or,  the  Copernican  argument  that  move- 
ment is  easier  if  the  object  moved  is  smaller  involves  a  matter  of 
Faith  since  it  implies  a  question  of  God's  power ;  for  to  God  all 
is  alike,  there  is  no  hard  nor  easy.3  Although  diurnal  movement 
is  useful  to  the  earth  alone  and  so,  according  to  the  Copernicans, 
the  earth  should  have  the  labor  of  it,  Riccioli  argues  that  every- 
thing was  created  for  man ;  let  the  stars  revolve  around  him.  The 
sun  may  be  nobler  than  the  earth,  but  man  is  nobler  than  the 
sun.4  If  the  earth's  movement  were  admitted,  Ptolemy's  de- 
fense would  be  broken  down  through  the  elimination  of  the 
epicycles  of  the  superior  planets :  here,  if  ever,  the  Copernicans 
appear  to  score,  as  Riccioli  himself  admits,5  but  he  calls  to  his 
aid  Tycho  Brahe  and  the  Bible.  "To  invoke  such  aids  is  to 
avow  his  defeat"  is  M.  Delambre's  comment  at  this  point.0 
There  are  many  more  arguments,  of  which  the  foregoing  are 
but  instances  chosen  more  or  less  at  random ;  but  no  one  of 
them  is  of  especial  weight  or  novelty. 

To  strengthen  his  case,  Riccioli  listed  the)  supporters  of  the/ 
heliocentric  doctrine  throughout  the  ages,  with  those  of  the  op- 
posite view.  If  a  man's  fame  adds  to  the  weight  of  his  opinion, 
the  modern  reader  will  be  inclined  to  think  the  Copernicans  have 
the  best  of  it,  for  omitting  the  ancients,  most  of  those  opposing 
it  are  obscure  men.7 

In  favor  of    the    Copernican  Against    the    hypothesis    of    the 
doctrine    [references   omit-         earth's  movement. 

ted].8  Aristotle 

Copernicus  Ptolemy 

Rheticus  Theon  the   Alexandrine 

Maestlin  Regiomontanus 

'Delambre:  Astr.  Mod.:  I,  674-680. 

2Riccioli:  Apologia:  2. 

"Riccioli:  Aim.  Nov.:  II,  313,  315. 

4Riccioli:  Aim.  Nov.:  II,  330-351.        slbid:  II,  339-340. 

"Delambre :  Op.  cit. :  I,  677.   7Ibid :  I.  673.  "Riccioli :  Aim.  Nov. :  II,  290. 

81 


Kepler 

Rothman 

Galileo 

Gilbert    (diurnal    motion) 

Foscarini 

Didacus  Stunica  (sic) 

Ismael  Bullialdus 

Jacob  Lansberg 

Peter  Herigonus 

Gassendi,  —  "but  submits  his 

intellect     captive     to     the 

Church  decrees." 
Descartes    "inclines     to     this 

belief." 

A.  L.  Politianus 
Bruno 


Alfraganus 

Macrobius 

Cleomedes 

Petrus  Aliacensis 

George   Buchanan 

Maurolycus 

Clavius 

Barocius 

Michael  Neander 

Telesius 

Martinengus 

Justus-Lipsius 

Scheiner 

Tycho 

Tasso 

Scipio  Claramontius 

Michael  Incofer 

Fromundus 

Jacob  Ascarisius 

Julius  Caesar  La  Galla 

Tanner 

Bartholomaeus  Amicus 

Antonio  Rocce 

Marinus  Mersennius 

Polacco 

Kircher 

Spinella 

Pineda 

Lorinis 

Mastrius 

Bellutris 

Poncius 

Delphinus 

Elephantutius 

Riccioli  nevertheless  viewed  the  Copernican  system  with 
much  sympathy.  After  a  full  statement  of  it,  he  comments; 
"We  have  not  yet  exhausted  the  full  profundities  of  the  Coper- 
nican hypothesis,  for  the  deeper  one  digs  into  it,  the  more  in- 
genious and  valuable  subtilties  may  one  unearth."  Then  he 
adds  that  "the  greatness  of  Copernicus  has  never  been  suffi- 
ciently appreciated  nor  will  it  be, — that  man  who  accomplished 
what  no  astronomer  before  him  had  scarcely  been  able  even  to 
suggest  without  an  insane  machinery  of  spheres,  for  by  a 

82 


triple  motion  of  the  earth  he  abolished  epicycles  and  eccentrics. 
What  before  so  many  Atlases  could  not  support,  this  one  Her- 
cules has  dared  to  carry.  Would  that  he  had  kept  himself 
within  the  limits  of  his  hypothesis  I"1 

His  conclusions  seem  to  show  that  only  his  position  as  a  Jesuit 
restrained  him  from  being  a  Copernican  himself.2  "I.  If  the 
celestial  phenomena  alone  are  considered,  they  are  equally  well 
explained  by  the  two  hypotheses  [Ptolemaic  and  Copernican]. 
II.  The  physical  evidence  as  explained  in  the  two  systems  with 
exception  of  percussion  and  the  speed  of  bodies  driven  north 
or  south,  and  east  or  west,  is  all  for  immobility.  III.  One 
might  waver  indifferently  between  the  two  hypotheses  aside 
from  the  witness  of  the  Scriptures,  which  settles  the  question. 
IV.  There  are  in  addition  plenty  of  other  motives  besides 
Scriptural  ones  for  rejecting  this  system."  (  !)  But  with  the 
Scriptural  evidence  he  adduces  the  decree  of  the  Index  under 
Paul  V  against  the  doctrine,  and  the  sentence  of  Galileo,  so 
that  "the  sole  possible  conclusion  is  that  the  earth  stands  by  na- 
ture immobile  in  the  center  of  the  universe,  and  the  sun  moves 
around  it  with  both  a  diurnal  and  an  annual  motion."3 

Even  this  great  book  was  as  insufficient  to  stop  the  criticism  of 
the  action  of  the  Congregations,  as  it  was  to  stop  the  spread  of 
the  doctrine.  So  once  again  the  father  took  up  the  cudgels  in  de- 
fense of  the  Church.  The  full  title  of  his  Apologia  runs :  "An 
Apologia  in  behalf  of  an  argument  from  physical  mathematics 
against  the  Copernican  system,  directed  against  that  system  by 
a  new  argument  from  the  reflex  motion  of  falling  weights." 
(Venice,  1669).  He  states  in  this  that  his  Almagestum  Novum 
had  received  the  approbation  of  professors  of  mathematics  at 
Bologna,  of  one  at  Pisa,  and  of  another  at  Padua,  and  he  quotes 
the  conclusion  from  Niceta-s  Orthodoxus  ("a  diatribe  by  Julius 
Turrinus,  doctor  of  mathematics,  philosophy,  medicine,  law,  and 
Greek  letters")  :  "That  the  sun  is  revolved  by  diurnal  and  by  an- 
nual motion,  and  that  the  earth  is  at  rest  I  firmly  hold,  infallibly 
believe,  and  openly  confess,  not  because  of  mathematical  reasons, 

'Riccioli:  Op.  cit.:  II,  304,  309.        2Delambre:  Astr.  Mod.:  I,  680. 
'Riccioli:  Op.  cit.:  II,  478  (condensed),  500. 

83 


but  solely  at  the  command  of  faith,  by  the  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  nod  of  approval  (nutu)  of  the  Roman  See,  whose 
rules  laid  down  at  the  dictation  of  the  spirit  of  truth,  may  I,  as 
befits  everyone,  uphold  as  law."1 

Riccioli  further  on  proceeds  to  answer  his  objecters,  declaring 
that  "the  Church  did  not  decide  ex  cathedra  that  the  Scripture 
concerning  movement  should  be  interpreted  literally;  that  the 
censure  was  laid  by  qualified  theologians  and  approved  by  emin- 
ent cardinals,  and  was  not  merely  provisional,  nor  for  the  time  be- 
ing absolute,  since  the  contrary  could  never  be  demonstrated  ;  and 
that  while  it  was  the  primary  intent  of  the  Inquisitors  to  con- 
demn the  opinion  as  heretical  and  directly  contrary  to  the  Scrip- 
tures. .  .  .they  added  that  it  was  absurd  and  false  also  in  phil- 
osophy, in  order,  not  to  avert  any  objections  which  could  be 
on  the  side  of  philosophy  or  astronomy,  but  only  lest  any  one 
should  say  that  Scripture  is  opposed  to  philosophy."2  These  an- 
swers are  indicative  of  the  type  of  criticism  with  which  the 
Church  had  to  cope  even  at  that  time.3 

'Riccioli:  Apologia:  4.  2Ibid :  103. 

3One  bit  of  contemporary  opinion  on  Riccioli  and  his  work  has  come 
down  to  us.  A  canon  at  Liege,  Rene-Frangois  Sluse,  wrote*  asking  a 
friend  (about  1670)  to  sound  Wallis,  the  English  mathematician,  as  to  his 
opinion  of  the  Almagestum  Novum,  and  of  this  argument  based  on  the 
acceleration  of  movement  in  falling  bodies.  Wallis  himself  replied  that 
he  thought  the  argument  devoid  of  all  value.  The  canon  at  once  wrote. 
"I  do  not  understand  how  a  man  as  intelligent  as  Riccioli  should  think 
he  could  bring  to  a  close  a  matter  so  difficult  [the  refutation]  by  a 
proof  as  futile  as  this."  Monchamp :  165-166. 

For  a  full,  annotated  list  of  books  published  against  the  Copernican 
system  between  1631-1688,  see  Martin:  Galilee:  386-388. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  GRADUAL  ACCEPTANCE  OF  THE  COPERNICAN  SYSTEM 

JUST  as  Tycho  Brahe's  system  proved  to  be  for  some  a  good 
half-way  station  between  the  improbable  Ptolemaic  and  the 
heretical  Copernican  system  j1  so  the  Cartesian  philosophy  helped 
others  to  reconcile  their  scientific  knowledge  with  their  reverence 
for  the  Scriptures,  until  Newton's  work  had  more  fully  demon- 
strated the  scientific  truth. 

Its  originator,  Rene  Descartes  (1596-1650)  was  in  Holland 
when  word  of  Galileo's  condemnation  reached  him  in  1633,  as  he 
was  seeking  in  the  bookshops  of  Amsterdam  and  Leyden  for  a 
copy  of  the  Dialogo.3  He  at  once  became  alarmed  lest  he  too  be 
accused  of  trying  to  establish  the  movement  of  the  earth,  a  doc- 
trine which  he  had  understood  was  then  publicly  taught  even  in 
Rome,  and  which  he  had  made  the  basis  of  his  own  philosophy. 
If  this  doctrine  were  condemned  as  false,  then  his  philosophy 
must  be  also ;  and,  true  to  his  training  by  the  Jesuits,  rather  than 
go  against  the  Church  he  would  not  publish  his  books.  He  set 
aside  his  Cosmos,  and  delayed  the  publication  of  the  Methode 
for  some  years  in  consequence,  even  starting  to  translate  it  into 
Latin  as  a  safeguard.4  His  conception  of  the  universe,  the  Co- 
pernican one  modified  to  meet  the  requirements  of  a  literally 
interpreted  Bible,  was  not  printed  until  1644,  when  it  appeared 
in  his  Principes? 

According  to  this  statement  which  he  made  only  asja  possible 
explanation  of  the  phenomena  and  not  as  an  absolute  truth,  while 
there  was  little  to  choose  between  the  Tychonic  andrthe  Coper- 


*See  Moxon:  Advice,  A  Tutor  to  Astronomy  and  Geography  (1670): 
269.  S 

2Haldane's  Descartes  (1905)  is  the  most  recent  and  authoritative  ac- 
count based  upon  Descartes's  works  as  published  in  the  Adams-Tannery 
edition  (Paris,  1896,  foil.).  This  edition  supersedes  that  W  Cousin. 

3Haldane:  153.        4Ibid :  158.      5Descartes :  Principes,  Pt.  Ill,  chap.  13. 

85 


nican  conceptions,  he  inclined  slightly  toward  the  former.  He 
conceived  of  the  earth  and  the  other  planets  as  each  borne  along 
in  its  enveloping  heaven  like  a  ship  by  the  tide,  or  like  a  man 
asleep  on  a  ship  that  was  sailing  from  Calais  to  Dover.  The 
earth  itself  does  not  move,  but  it  is  transported  so  that  its  position 
is  changed  in  relation  to  the  other  planets  but  not  visibly  so  in 
relation  to  the  fixed  stars  because  of  the  vast  intervening  spaces. 
The  laws  of  the  universe  affect  even  the  most  minute  particle, 
and  all  alike  are  swept  along  in  a  series  of  vortices,  or  whirlpools, 
of  greater  or  less  size.  Thus  the  whole  planetary  system  sweeps 
around  the  sun  in  one  great  vortex,  as  the  satellites  sweep 
around  their  respective  planets  in  lesser  ones.  In  this  way  Des- 
cartes worked  out  a  mechanical  explanation  of  the  universe  of 
considerable  importance  because  it  was  a  rational  one  which  any- 
one could  understand.  Its  defects  were  many,  to  be  sure,  as  for 
example,  that  it  did  not  allow  for  the  elliptical  orbits  of  the  plan- 
ets j1  and  one  critic  has  claimed  that  this  theory  of  a  motionless 
earth  borne  along  by  an  enveloping  heaven  was  comparable  to 
a  worm  in  a  Dutch  cheese  sent  from  Amsterdam  to  Batavia, — 
the  worm  has  travelled  about  6000  leagues  but  without  changing 
its  place  !2  But  this  theory  fulfilled  Descartes's  aim :  to  show 
that  the  universe  was  governed  by  mechanical  laws  of  which  we 
can  be  absolutely  certain  and  that  Galileo's  discoveries  simply 
indicated  this.3 

This  exposition  of  the  Copernican  doctrine  strongly  appealed 
to  the  literary  world  of  the  17th  and  18th  centuries  in  western 
Europe,  especially  in  the  Netherlands,  in  the  Paris  salons  and 
in  the  universities.4  M.  Monchamp  cites  a  number  of  contempor- 
ary comments  upon  its  spread,  in  one  of  which  it  is  claimed  that 
in  1691,  ;the  university  of  Louvain  had  for  the  preceding  forty 
years  been  practically  composed  of  Cartesians.5  For  the  time  be- 
ing, this  theory  was  a  more  or  less  satisfactory  explanation  of 
the  universe  according  to  known  laws ;  it  answered  to  Galileo's 
observatioi  / ;  it  was  in  harmony  with  the  Scriptures,  and  its  vor- 
tices paved  the  way  for  the  popular  acceptance  of  Newton's  law 
of  uni versa,!  gravitation. 

'Haldane :    291.  2Monchamp:    185,    note.  'Haldane:    292. 

4Ibid:  193,  279.  5Monchamp:   177-181. 

86 


Protestant  England  was  of  course  little  disturbed  by  the  decree 
against  the  Copernican  doctrine,  a  fact  that  makes  it  possible, 
perhaps,  to  see  there  more  clearly  the  change  in  people's  attitude 
from  antagonism  to  acceptance,  than  in  Catholic  Europe  where 
fear  of  the  Church's  power,  and  respect  for  its  decisions  inhib- 
ited honest  public  expression  of  thought  and  conviction.  While 
in  England  also  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  con- 
tinued to  be  with  the  common  people  a  strong  objection  against 
the  doctrine,  the  rationalist  movement  of  the  late  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  along  with  Newton's  great  work,  helped  win 
acceptance  for  it  among  the  better  educated  classes. 

Bruno  had  failed  to  win  over  his  English  hearers,  and  in  1600 
when  the  De  Magnete  was  published,  William  Gilbert,  (1540- 
1603)  was  apparently  the  only  supporter  of  the  earth's  move- 
ment then  in  England,1  and  he  advocated  the  diurnal  motion 
only.2  Not  many,  however,  were  as  outspoken  as  Bacon  in  de- 
nunciation of  the  system;  they  were  simply  somewhat  ironically 
indifferent.  An  exception  to  this  was  Dean  Wren  of  Windsor 
(father  of  the  famous  architect).  He  could  not  speak  strongly 
enough  against  it  in  his  marginal  notes  on  Browne's  Pseudodoxia 
Epidewiica.  As  Dr.  Johnson  wrote,3  Sir  Thomas  Browne  (1605- 
1682)  himself  in  his  zeal  for  the  old  errors,  did  not  easily  admit 
new  positions,  for  he  never  mentioned  the  motion  of  the  earth 
but  with  contempt  and  ridicule.  This  was  not  enough  for  the 


*Berry  quotes  (p.  92)  a  passage  from  Thomas  Digges  (d.  1595)  with 
the  date  1590:  "But  in  this  our  age,  one  rare  witte  (seeing  the  continuall 
errors  that  from  time  to  time  more  and  more  continually  have  been  dis- 
covered, besides  the  infinite  absurdities  in  their  Theoricks,  which  they 
have  been  forced  to  admit  that  would  not  confess  any  mobility  in 
the  ball  of  the  Earth)  hath  by  long  studye,  paynfull  practise,  and  rare 
invention  delivered  a  new  Theorick  or  Model  of  the  World,  shewing 
that  the  Earth  resteth  not  in  the  Center  of  the  whole  world  or  globe  of 
elements,  which  encircled  or  enclosed  in  the  Moone's  orbit,  and  together 
with  the  whole  globe  of  mortality  is  carried  round  about  the  Sunne. 
which  like  a  king  in  the  middst  of  all,  rayneth  and  giveth  laws  of  motion 
to  all  the  rest,  sphaerically  dispersing  his  glorious  beames  of  light  through 
all  this  sacred  celestiall  Temple."  Browne  also  refers  to  Digges 
(I,  383). 

'Gilbert:  DC  Magnete.  Bk.  VI,  c.  3-5    (214-228). 

'Johnson  ;  Life,  in  Browne :  I,  xvii. 

87 


Dean,  who  wrote  in  the  margin  of  Browne's  book,  at  such  a  pas- 
sage,1 that  there  were  "eighty-odd  expresse  places  in  the  Bible 
affirming  in  plaine  and  overt  terms  the  naturall  and  perpetuall 
motion  of  sun  and  moon"  and  that  "a  man  should  be  affirighted 
to  follow  that  audacious  and  pernicious  suggestion  which  Satan 
used,  and  thereby  undid  us  all  in  our  first  parents,  that  God 
hath  a  double  meaning  in  his  commands,  in  effect  condemning 
God  of  amphibologye.  And  all  this  boldness  and  overweaning 
having  no  other  ground  but  a  seeming  argument  of  some  phe- 
nomena forsooth,  which  notwithstanding  we  know  the  learned 
Tycho,  prince  of  astronomers,  who  lived  fifty-two  years  since 
Copernicus,  hath  by  admirable  and  matchlesse  instruments  and 
many  yeares  exact  observations  proved  to  bee  noe  better  than  a 
dreame." 

Richard  Burton  (1576-1639)  in  The  Anatomy  of  Melancholy 
speaks  of  the  doctrine  as  a  "prodigious  tenent,  or  paradox," 
lately  revive  by  "Copernicus,  Brunus  and  some  others,"  and 
calls  Copernicus  in  consequence  the  successor  of  Atlas.2  The 
vast  extent  of  the  heavens  that  this  supposition  requires,  he 
considers  "quite  opposite  to  reason,  to  natural  philosophy,  and 
all  out  as  absurd  as  disproportional,  (so  some  will)  as  prodi- 
gious, as  that  of  the  sun's  swift  motion  of  the  heavens."  If  the 
earth  is  a  planet,  then  other  planets  may  be  inhabited  (as  Chris- 
tian Huygens  argued  later  on)  ;  and  this  involves  a  possible  plu- 
rality of  worlds.  Burton  laughs  at  those  who,  to  avoid  the 
Church  attitude  and  yet  explain  the  celestial  phenomena,  invent 
new  hypotheses  and  new  systems  of  the  world,  "correcting 
others,  doing  worse  themselves,  reforming  some  and  marring 
all,"  as  he  says  of  Roeslin's  endeavors.  "In  the  meantime  the 
world  is  tossed  in  a  blanket  amongst  them ;  they  hoyse  the  earth 
up  and  down  like  a  ball,  make  it  stand  and  goe  at  their  pleas- 
ure."3 He  himself  was  indifferent. 

Others  more  sensitive  to  the  implications  of  this  system, 
might  exclaim  with  George  Herbert  (1593-1633)  :4 


Browne:  I,  35. 

2Burton :   Anatomy   of  Melancholy,   I,    1 ;    I,   66.     First   edition,    1621 ; 
reprinted  1624,  1628,   1632,  1638,  1651-2,  1660,  1676. 
"Ibid:  I,  385,  389.         'Herbert:  II,  315. 

88 


"Although  there  were  some  fourtie  heav'ns,  or  more, 

Sometimes  I  peere  above  them  all; 
Sometimes  I  hardly  reach  a  score, 

Sometimes  to  hell  I  fall. 

"O  rack  me  not  to  such  a  vast  extent, 

Those  distances  belong  to  thee. 
The  world's  too  little  for  thy  tent, 

A  grave  too  big  for  me." 

Or  they  might  waver,  undecided,  like  Milton  who  had  the  arch- 
angel answer  Adam's  questions  thus:1 

"But  whether  thus  these  things,  or  whether  not, 
Whether  the  Sun  predominant  in  Heaven 
Rise  on  the  Earth,  or  Earth  rise  on  the  Sun, 
Hee  from  the  East  his  flaming  robe  begin, 
Or  Shee  from  West  her  silent  course  advance 
With  inoffensive  pace  that  spinning  sleeps 
On  her  soft  axle,  while  she  paces  ev'n 
And  bears  thee  soft  with  the  smooth  Air  along, 
Solicit  not  thy  thoughts  with  matters  hid, 
Leave  them  to  God  above,  him  serve  and  feare; 
Of  other  Creatures,  as  him  pleases  best, 
Wherever  plac't,  let  him  dispose;  joy  thou 
In  what  he  gives  to  thee,  this  Paradise 
And  the  fair  Eve:  Heaven  is  for  thee  too  high 
To  know  what  passes  there:  be  lowlie  wise."     (1667) 

Whewell  thinks2  that  at  this  time  the  diffusion  of  the  Coper 
nican  system  was  due  more  to  the  writings  of  Bishop  Wilkins 
than  to  those  of  any  one  else,  for  their  very  extravagances  drew 
stronger  attention  to  it.  The  first,  "The  Discovery  of  a  New 
World:  or  a  Discourse  tending  to  prove  that  there  may  be 
another  habitable  world  in  the  moon,"  appeared  in  1638 ;  and 


'Milton:  Paradise  Lost,  Bk.  VIII,  lines  159  et  seq. 

The  great  Puritan  divine,  John  Owen  (1616—1683),  accepts  the  mira- 
cle of  the  sun's  standing  still  without  a  word  of  reference  to  the  new 
astronomy.  (Works:  II,  160.)  Farrar  states  that  Owen  declared  New- 
ton's discoveries  were  against  the  evident  testimonies  of  Scripture 
(Farrar:  History  of  Interpretation:  xviii.),  but  I  have  been  unable  to 
verify  this  statement.  Owen  died  before  the  Principia  was  published  in 
1687. 

2Whewell:    I,  410. 

89 


a  third  edition  was  issued  only  two  years  later  together  with 
the  second  book;  "Discourse  concerning  a  New  Planet — that 
'tis  probable  our  Earth  is  one  of  the  planets."  In  this  latter, 
the  Bishop  stated  certain  propositions  as  indubitable;  among 
these  were,  that  the  scriptural  passages  intimating  diurnal  mo- 
tion of  the  sun  or  of  the  heavens  are  fairly  capable  of  another 
interpretation;  that  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  to  prove  the 
earth  incapable  of  those  motions  which  Copernicus  ascribes  to 
it;  that  it  is  more  probable  the  earth  does  move  than  the  heav- 
ens, and  that  this  hypothesis  is  exactly  agreeable  to  common  ap- 
pearances.1 And  these  books  appeared  when  political  and  con- 
stitutional matters,  and  not  astronomical  ones,  were  the  burn- 
ing questions  of  the  day  in  England. 

The  spread  of  the  doctrine  was  also  helped  by  Thomas  Salus- 
bury's  translations  of  the  books  and  passages  condemned  by  the 
Index  in  1616  and  1619.  This  collection,  "intended  for  gentle- 
men," he  published  by  popular  subscription  immediately  after 
the  Restoration,2  a  fact  that  indicates  that  not  merely  mathe- 
maticians (whom  Whewell  claims3  were  by  that  time  all  de- 
cided Copernicans)  but  the  general  public  were  interested  and 
awake.4 

The  appearance  of  Newton's  Principia  in  1687  with  his  state- 
ment of  the  universal  application  of  the  law  of  gravitation,  soon 
ended  hesitancy  for  most  people.  Twelve  years  later,  John 
Keill,  (1671-1721),  the  Scotch  mathematician  and  astronomer 
at  Oxford,  refuted  Descartes's  theory  of  vortices  and  opened 
the  first  course  of  lectures  delivered  at  Oxford  on  the  new  New- 
tonian philosophy.5  Not  only  were  his  lectures  thronged,  but 


'Wilkins:  Discourse  Concerning  a  New  Planet. 

"Salusbury:  Math.  Coll.:  To  the  Reader. 

3 Whewell:   I,  411. 

4One  London  bookseller  in  1670  advertised  for  sale  "spheres  accord- 
ing to  the  Ptolmean,  Tychonean  and  Copernican  systems  with  books  for 
their  use."  (Moxon:  272.)  In  1683  in  London  appeared  the  third 
edition  of  Gassendi's  Institutio,  the  text-book  of  astronomy  in  the 
universities  during  this  period  of  uncertainty.  It  too  wavers  between 
the  Tychonic  and  the  Copernican  systems. 

"Diet,  of  Nat.  Blog. :  "Keill." 

90 


his  books  advocating  the  Copernican  system  in  full1  went 
through  several  editions  in  relatively  few  years. 

In  the  Colonies,  Yale  University  which  had  hitherto  been  us- 
ing Gassendi's  textbook,  adopted  the  Newtonian  ideas  a  few 
years  later,  partly  through  the  gift  to  the  university  of  some 
books  by  Sir  Isaac  himself,  and  partly  through  the  enthusiasm 
of  two  young  instructors  there,  Johnson  and  Brown,  who  in 
1714-1722  widened  the  mathematical  course  by  including  the  new 
theories.2  The  text  they  used  was  by  Rohault,  a  Cartesian, 
edited  by  Samuel  Clarke  with  critical  notes  exposing  the  falla- 
cies of  Cartesianism.  This  "disguised  Newtonian  treatise"  was 
used  at  Yale  till  1744.  The  University  of  Pennsylvania  used 
this  same  text  book  even  later.3 

In  1710  Pope  (1688-1744)  refers  to  "our  Copernican  sys- 
tem,"4 and  Addison  (1671-1719)  in  the  Spectator  (July  2, 
1711)  writes  this  very  modern  passage: 

"But  among  this  set  of  writers,  there  are  none  who  more 
gratify  and  enlarge  the  imagination,  than  the  authors  of  the 
new  philosophy,  whether  we  consider  their  theories  of  the 
earth  or  heavens,  the  discoveries  they  have  made  by  glasses, 
or  any  other  of  their  contemplations  on  nature.  .  .  .  But 
when  we  survey  the  whole  earth  at  once,  and  the  several  plan- 
ets that  lie  within  its  neighborhood,  we  are  filled  with  a  pleas- 
ing astonishment,  to  see  so  many  worlds  hanging  one  above 
another,  and  sliding  around  their  axles  in  such  an  amazing- 
pomp  and  solemnity.  If,  after  this,  we  contemplate  those  wide 
fields  of  aether,  that  reach  in  height  as  far  as  from  Saturn  to 
the  fixed  stars,  and  run  abroad  almost  to  an  infinitude,  our 
imagination  finds  its  capacity  filled  with  so  immense  a  prospect, 
as  puts  it  upon  the  stretch  to  comprehend  it.  But  if  we  yet  rise 
higher,  and  consider  the  fixed  stars  as  so  many  vast  oceans  of 
flame,  that  are  each  of  them  attended  with  a  different  set  of 
planets,  and  still  discover  new  firmaments  and  new  lights,  that 
are  sunk  farther  in  those  unfathomable  depths  of  aether,  so 
as  not  to  be  seen  by  the  strongest  of  our  telescopes,  we  are  lost 
in  such  a  labyrinth  of  suns  and  worlds,  and  confounded  with 
the  immensity  and  magnificence  of  nature. 


aKeill :  Introductio  ad   Veram  Astronomiam. 

'Cajori:  29-30. 

"Cajori:  37.         4Pope:   Works,  VI,  110. 


"Nothing  is  more  pleasant  to  the  fancy,  than  to  enlarge  itself 
by  degrees,  in  its  contemplation  of  the  various  proportions 
which  its  several  objects  bear  to  each  other,  when  it  compares 
the  body  of  man  to  the  bulk  of  the  whole  earth,  the  earth  to 
the  circle  it  describes  round  the  sun,  that  circle  to  the  sphere 
of  the  fixed  stars,  the  sphere  of  the  fixed  stars  to  the  circuit  of 
the  whole  creation,  the  whole  creation  itself  to  the  infinite  space 
that  is  everywhere  diffused  around  it;  .  .  .  But  if,  after  all 
this,  we  take  the  least  particle  of  these  animal  spirits,  and  con- 
sider its  capacity  wrought  into  a  world,  that  shall  contain  within 
those  narrow  dimensions  a  heaven  and  earth,  stars  and  planets, 
and  every  different  species  of  living  creatures,  in  the  same 
analogy  and  proportion  they  bear  to  each  other  in  our  own  uni- 
verse; such  a  speculation,  by  reason  of  its  nicety,  appears  ridic- 
ulous to  those  who  have  not  turned  their  thoughts  that  way, 
though,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  founded  on  no  less  than  the 
evidence  of  a  demonstration."1 

A  little  later,  Cotton  Mather  declared  (1721)  that  the  "Co- 
pernican  hypothesis  is  now  generally  preferred,''  and  "that 
there  is  no  objection  against  the  motion  of  the  earth  but  what 
has  had  a  full  solution."2  Soon  the  semi-popular  scientific 
books  took  up  the  Newtonian  astronomy.  One  such  was  de- 
scribed as  "useful  for  all  sea-faring  Men,  as  well  as  Gentle- 


1Addison :  Spectator,  No.  420,  (IV,  372-373).  An  interesting  contrast 
to  this  passage  and  a  good  illustration  of  how  the  traditional  phraseol- 
ogy continued  in  poetry  is  found  in  Addison's  famous  hymn,  written  a 
year  later: 

"Whilst  all  the  stars  that  round  her  [earth]  burn 
And  all  the  planets  in  their  turn, 
Confirm  the  tidings  as  they  roll, 
And  spread  the  truth  from  pole  to  pole. 

"What  though  in  solemn  silence  all 
Move  round  this  dark  terrestrial  ball; 
What  though  no  real  voice  nor  sound 
Amidst  their  radiant  orbs  be  found ; 

"In  reason's  ear  they  all  rejoice, 
And  utter  forth  a  glorious  voice; 
Forever  singing,  as  they  shine, 
'The  hand  that  made  us  is  divine'." 

2Mather:  Christian  Philosopher.  75,  76. 
92 


men,  and  Others."1  "Newtonianisme  pour  les  Dames"  was 
advertised  in  France  in  the  forties.-  By  1738  when  Pope 
wrote  the  Universal  Prayer: 

"Yet  not  to  earth's  contracted  span 

Thy  goodness  let  me  bound 
Or  think  thee  Lord  alone  of  man, 

When  thousand  worlds  are  round," 

the  Copernican-Newtonian  astronomy  had  become  a  common- 
place to  most  well-educated  people  in  England.  To  be  sure,  the 
great  John  Wesley  (1770)  considered  the  systems  of  the  uni- 
verse merely  "ingenious  conjectures,"  but  then,  he  doubted 
whether  "more  than  Probabilities  we  shall  ever  attain  in  regard 
to  things  at  so  great  a  distance  from  us."3 

The  old  phraseology,  however,  did  recur  occasionally,  es- 
pecially in  poetry  and  in  hymns.  For  instance,  a  hymnal  (pref- 
ace dated  1806)  contains  such  choice  selections  as : 

"Before  the  pondr'ous  earthly  globe 

In  fluid  air  was  stay'd, 
Before  the  ocean's  mighty  springs 

Their  liquid  stores  display'd"- — 

and : 

"Who  led  his  blest  unerring  hand 

Or  lent  his  needful  aid 
When  on  its  strong  unshaken  base 

The  pondr'ous  earth  was  laid?"4 

But  too  much  importance  should  not  be  attributed  to  such  pas- 
sages ;  though  poetry  and  astronomy  need  not  conflict,  as  Keble 
illustrated  :r> 

"Ye  Stars  that  round  the  Sun  of  Righteousness 
In  glorious  order  roll."  .    .   . 


'Leadbetter:  Astronomy   (1729). 

2In  de  Maupertius:  Outrages  Divers }  (at  the  back). 

3Wesley :   Compendium  of  Natural  Philosophy,  I,   14,   139. 

4Dobell:  Hymns,  No.  5,  No.  10. 

6Keble:  Christian  Year,  279. 


93 


By  the  middle  of  the  18th  century  in  England,  one  could  say 
with  Home  "that  the  Newtonian  System  had  been  in  posses- 
sion of  the  chair  for  some  years  ;'J1  but  it  had  not  yet  convinced 
^  the  common  people,  for  as  Pike  wrote  in  1753,  "Many  Com- 
mon Christians  to  this  day  firmly  believe  that  the  earth  really 
stands  still  and  that  the  sun  moves  all  round  the  earth  once  a 
day:  neither  can  they  be  easily  persuaded  out  of  this  opinion, 
because  they  look  upon  themselves  bound  to  believe  what  the 
Scripture  asserts."2 

There  was,  however,  just  at  this  time  a  little  group  of 
thinkers  who  objected  to  Newton's  scheme,  "because  of  the 
endless  uninterrupted  flux  of  matter  from  the  sun  in  light,  an 
expense  which  should  destroy  that  orb."8  These  Hutchinson- 
ians  conceived  of  light  as  pure  ether  in  motion  springing  forth 
from  the  sun,  growing  more  dense  the  further  it  goes  till  it  be- 
comes air,  and,  striking  the  circumference  of  the  universe 
(which  is  perhaps  an  immovable  solid),  is  thrown  back  toward 
the  sun  and  melted  into  light  again.  Its  force  as  its  tides  of 
motion  strike  the  earth  and  the  other  planets  produces  their 
constant  gyrations.4  Men  like  Duncan  Forbes,  Lord  Presi- 
dent of  the  Court  of  Sessions,  and  George  Home,  President  of 
Magdalen  College,  Oxford,  as  a  weapon  against  rationalism, 
favored  this  notion  that  had  been  expounded  by  John  Hutchin- 
son  (1674-1737)  in  his  Moses's  Principia  (1724)/'  They  were 
also  strongly  attracted  by  the  scriptural  symbolism  with  which 
the  book  abounds.  Leslie  Stephen  summarizes  their  doctrines 
as  (1)  extreme  dislike  for  rationalism,  (2)  a  fanatical  respect 
1  for  the  letter  of  the  Bible,  and  (3)  an  attempt  to  enlist  the  ris- 
ing powers  of  scientific  enquiry  upon  the  side  of  orthodoxy.6 
This  "little  eddy  of  thought"7  was  not  of  much  influence  even 
at  that  time,  but  it  has  a  certain  interest  as  indicating  the  posi- 
1  tions  men  have  taken  when  on  the  defensive  against  new  ideas. 


1Horne :  Fair,  Candid,  Impartial  Statement   .    .   ,  4. 

2Pike:  Philosophia  Sacra,  43. 

'Forbes:  Letter,  (1755).        4See  Wesley:  I,  136-7. 

5Dict.  of  Nat.  Biog.     "Hutchinson." 

"Stephen:  Hist,  of  Eng.  Thought:  I,  390.        7Ihid :  391. 

94 


CHAPTER     V 
THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  NEW  ASTRONOMY  :  CONCLUSION 

ASTRONOMICAL  ;thought  on  the  Continent  was  more 
hampered,  in  the  Catholic  countries  especially,  by  the  re- 
strictive opinions  of  the  Church.  Yet  in  1757,  when  the  de- 
cree prohibiting  all  books  dealing  with  the  Copernican  doctrine 
was  removed  from  the  Index,  that  system  had  already  long 
been  adopted  by  the  more  celebrated  academies  of  Europe,  for 
so  Mrne.  de  Premontval  claimed  in  1750;  and  it  was  then 
reaching  out  to  non-scientific  readers,  through  simple  accounts 
for  "ladies  and  others  not  well  versed  in  these  somewhat  tech- 
nical matters."1  The  great  landmark  in  the  development  of  the 
doctrine  was  the  publication  of  Newton's  Principia  in  1687, 
though  its  effect  in  Europe  was  of  course  slower  in  being  felt 
than  it  was  in  England.  Newton's  work  and  that  of  the  as- 
tronomers immediately  following  him  was  influential  except 
where  the  Church's  prohibitions  still  held  sway. 

During  this  period,  the  books  published  in  free  Holland  were 
more  outspoken  in  their  radical  acceptance  or  in  their  uncer- 
tainty of  the  truth  than  were  those  published  in  the  Catholic 
countries.  Christian  Huygens's  treatises  on  the  plurality  of 
worlds  not  only  fully  accepted  the  Copernican  doctrine,  but  like 
those  of  Bishop  Wilkins  in  England,  deduced  therefrom  the 
probability  that  the  other  planets  are  inhabited  even  as  the 
earth  is.  A  writer2  on  the  sphere  in  1697  stated  the  different 
theories  of  the  universe  so  that  his  readers  might  choose  the 
one  that  to  them  appeared  the  most  probable.  He  himself  pre- 
ferred the  Cartesian  explanation  as  the  simplest  and  most  con- 
venient of  all,  "though  it  should  be  held  merely  as  an  hypoth- 
esis and  not  as  in  absolute  agreement  with  the  truth."  Pierre 
Bayle3  also  explained  the  different  systems,  but  appears  himself 


Me  Premontval:  Le  Mpchaniste  Philosophe,  54,  72.  (The  Hague,  1750). 

Me  Brisbar:  Calendrier  Historiquc,   (Leyden),  228-233. 

'Bayle:  Systemc  Abregc  de  Philosophic  (The  Hague,  1731),  IV,  394-412. 

95 


to  waver  between  the  Copernican  and  the  Tychonic  concep- 
tions. He  used,  however,  the  old  word  "perigee"  (nearness 
to  the  earth)  rather  than  the  Newtonian  "perihelion"  (near- 
ness to  the  sun).  His  objections  to  the  Copernican  doctrine 
have  a  familiar  ring:  It  is  contrary  to  the  evidence  of  the 
senses ;  a  stone  would  not  fall  back  to  its  starting-place,  nor 
could  a  bird  return  to  her  nest;  the  earth  would  not  be  equi- 
distant from  the  horizon  and  the  two  poles;  and  lastly  it  is  con- 
trary to  the  Scriptures.  Only  a  few  years  later,  however,  De 
Maupertius  wrote  that  no  one  at  that  day  (1744)  doubted  any 
longer  the  motion  of  the  earth  around  its  axis,  and  he  believed 
with  Newton  that  the  laws  of  gravity  applied  to  the  universe  as 
well  as  to  the  earth.  Then  he  proceeded  to  explain  the  Coper- 
nican system  which  he  favored  on  the  ground  of  its  greater 
probability.1 

Even  in  1750,  Mme.  de  Premontval  thought  it  wiser  to  pub- 
lish in  Holland  her  little  life  of  her  father,  Le  Mechaniste  Phi- 
losophe.  This  Jean  Piegeon,  she  claimed,  was  the  first  man  in 
France  to  make  spheres  according  to  the  Copernican  system. 
An  orphan,  he  was  educated  by  a  priest ;  then  took  up  carpen- 
try and  mechanics.  When  he  tried  to  make  a  celestial  sphere 
according  to  the  Ptolemaic  system,  he  became  convinced  of  its 
falsity  because  of  its  complexities.  Therefore  he  plunged  into 
a  study  of  the  new  system  which  he  adopted.  His  first  Coper- 
nican sphere  was  exhibited  before  Louis  XIV  at  Versailles  !n 
1706  and  was  bought  by  the  king  and  presented  to  the  Acad- 
emic des  Sciences.2  The  second  was  taken  to  Canada  by  one  of 
the  royal  officials.  Public  interest  in  his  work  was  keen;  even 
Peter  the  Great,  who  was  then  in  Paris,  visited  his  workroom.3 
M.  Piegeon  also  wrote  a  book  on  the  Copernican  system.4 

It  seems,  however,  as  though  M.  Piegeon  were  slightly  in  ad- 
vance of  his  age,  or  more  daring,  perhaps,  than  his  contempo- 
raries, for  there  was  almost  no  outspoken  support  of  the  Co- 
pernican system  at  this  time  in  France.  Even  Cassini  of  the 
French  Academic  des  Sciences  did  not  explicitly  support  it, 


Me  Maupertius :    Elements  de  Geographic,  xv,  9-14. 

2de  Premontval:  123.  "Ibid :  132.  "Ibid:  157. 

96 


though  he  spoke  favorably  of  it  and  remarked  that  recent  ob- 
servations had  demonstrated  the  revolutions  of  each  planet 
around  the  sun  in  accordance  with  that  supposition.1  But  the 
great  orator,  Bossuet,  (1627-1703),  clung  to  the  Ptolemaic  con- 
ception as  alone  orthodox,  and  scriptural.2  Abbe  Fenelon 
(1651-1715)  writing  on  the  existence  of  God,  asked:  "Who  is 
it  who  has  hung  up  this  motionless  ball  of  the  earth ;  who  has 
placed  the  foundations  for  it,"  and  "who  has  taught  the  sun  to 
turn  ceasely  and  regularly  in  spaces  where  nothing  troubles 
it?"3  And  a  writer  on  the  history  of  the  heavens  as  treated  by 
poets,  philosophers  and  Moses  (1739),  tells  Gassendi,  Descartes 
and  many  other  great  thinkers  that  their  ideas  of  the  heavens 
are  proved  vain  and  false  by  daily  experience  as  well  as  by  the 
account  of  Creation ;  for  the  most  enlightened  experience  is 
wholly  and  completely  in  accord  with  the  account  of  Moses. 
This  book  was  written,  the  author  said,  for  young  people  stu- 
dents of  philosophy  and  the  humanities,  also  for  teachers.4 

The  Jesuit  order,  still  a  power  in  Europe  in  the  early  18th 
century,  was  bound  to  the  support  of  the  traditional  view,  which 
led  them  into  some  curious  positions  in  connection  with 
the  discoveries  made  in  astronomy  during  this  period.  Thus 
the  famous  Jesuit  astronomer  Boscovich  (1711-1787)  published 
in  Rome  in  1746  a  study  of  the  ellipticity  of  the  orbits  of  plan- 
ets which  necessitated  the  use  of  the  Copernican  position;  he 
stated  he  had  assumed  it  as  true  merely  to  facilitate  his  labors. 
In  the  second  edition  (1785)  published  some  years  after  the  re- 
moval from  the  Index  of  the  decree  against  books  teaching  the 
Copernican  doctrine  (at  his  instigation,  it  is  claimed),5  he 
added  a  note  to  this  passage  asking  the  reader  to  remember  the 
time  and  the  place  of  its  former  publication.6  Just  at  the 
end  of  the  preceding  century,  one  of  the  seminary  fathers  at 
Liege  maintained  that  were  the  earth  to  move,  being  made  up 


1Cassini:  De  I'Origine  et  du  Progres  .    .  35. 

'Shields:  59.    I  have  failed  to  find  this  reference  in  Bossuet's  works. 

'Fenelon:  Oeuvres,  I,  3  and  7. 

4Pluche :  Histoire  du  del :  viii,  ix,  xiii. 

5Cath.  Ency.:  "Boscovitch."        'Opera :  III   (1785). 

97 


of   so  many  and   divers   combustible  materials,   it   would    soon 
burst  into  flames  and  be  reduced  to  ashes!1 

During  the  18th  century  at  Louvain  the  Copernican  doctrine 
was  warmly  supported,  but  as  a  theory.  A  MS.  of  a  course 
given  there  in  1748  has  come  down  to  us,  in  which  the  pro- 
fessor, while  affirming  its  hypothetical  character,  described  it  as 
a  simple,  clear  and  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  phenomena, 
then  answered  all  the  objections  made  against  it  by  theologians, 
physicists,  and  astronomers.2  A  few  years  earlier,  (1728)  a 
Jesuit  at  Liege,  though  well  acquainted  with  Newton's  work, 
declared:  "For  my  part  I  do  not  doubt  the  least  in  the  world 
that  the  earth  is  eternally  fixed,  for  God  has  founded  the  ter- 
restrial globe,  and  it  will  not  be  shaken."3  Another  priest 
stated  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  astronomy  that  the  sun  and  the 
planets  daily  revolve  around  the  earth;  then  later  on,  he  ex- 
plained the  Copernican  and  the  Tychonic  schemes  and  the  Car- 
tesian theory  of  motion  with  evident  sympathy.4  Two  others, 
one  a  Jesuit  in  1682  at  Naples,5  the  other  in  1741  at  Verona, 
frankly  preferred  the  Tychonic  system,  and  the  latter  called  the 
system  found  by  "Tommaso  Copernico"  a  mere  fancy.6  Still 
another  priest,  evidently  well  acquainted  with  Bradley's  work^, 
as  late  as  in  1774  declared  that  there  was  nothing  decisive  on 
either  side  of  the  great  controversy  between  the  systems.7  At 
this  time,  however,  a  father  was  teaching  the  Copernican  sys- 
tem at  Liege  without  differentiating  between  thesis  and  hypoth- 
esis.8 And  a  Jesuit,  while  he  denied  (1772)  universal  gravita- 
tion, the  earth's  movement,  and  the  plurality  of  inhabited 
worlds,  declared  that  the  Roman  Congregation  had  done  wrong 
in  charging  these  as  heretical  suggestions.  In  fact,  M.  Mon- 
champ,  himself  a  Catholic  priest  at  Louvain,  declared  that  the 
Newtonian  proofs  were  considered  by  many  in  the  18th  century 
virtually  to  abrogate  the  condemnation  of  1616  and  1633 ;  hence 
the  professors  of  the  seminary  at  Liege  had  adopted  the  Coper- 
nican system.9 

'Cited  in  Monchamp :  335  note.  3Ibid  :  326.  *Ibid :  330. 

*Fontana :  Institutio,  II,  32-35.  *Ferramosca :  Positiones  .    .    :19. 

"Piccoli:  La  Scienza,  4,  7.     TSpagnio,  De  Motu,  81.     "Monchamp :  331. 
9Monchamp :   345. 


The  famous  French  astronomer  Lalande,  in  Rome  in  1757 
when  the  Inquisition  first  modified  its  position,  tried  to  per- 
suade the  authorities  to  remove  Galileo's  book  also  from  the 
Index;  but  his  efforts  were  unavailing,  because  of  the  sentence 
declared  against  its  author.1  In  1820  Canon  Settele  was  not 
allowed  by  the  Master  of  the  Sacred  Palace  to  publish  his  text- 
book because  it  dealt  with  the  forbidden  subject.  His  appeal 
to  the  Congregation  itself  resulted,  as  we1  have  seen,  in  the 
decree  of  1822  removing  this  as  a  cause  for  prohibition.  Yet 
as  late  as  in  1829,  when  a  statue  to  Copernicus  was  being  un- 
veiled at  Warsaw,  and  a  great  convocation  had  met  in  the 
church  for  the  celebration  of  the  mass  as  part  of  the  ceremony, 
at  the  last  moment  the  clergy  refused  in  a  body  to  attend  a 
service  in  honor  of  a  man  whose  book  was  on  the  Index.2 

Thus  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  by  reason  of  its  organiza-  I 
tion  and  of  its  doctrine  requiring  obedience  to  its  authority  was 
more  conspicuous  for  its  opposition  as  a  body  to  the  Copernican 
doctrine,  even  though  as  individuals  many  of  its  members  fav- 
ored the  new  system.  But  the  Protestant  leaders  were  quite  as 
emphatic  in  their  denunciations,  though  less  influential  because 
of  the  Protestant  idea  of  the  right  to  individual  belief  and  inter- 
pretation. Luther,  Melancthon,  Calvin,  Turrettin,3  Owen,  and 
Wesley  are  some  of  the  notable  opponents  to  it.  And  when  the  v 
scientific  objections  had  practically  disappeared,  those  who  in- 
terpreted the  Scriptures  literally  were  still  troubled  and  hesi- 
tant down  to  the  present  day.  Not  many  years  ago,  people  / 
flocked  to  hear  a  negro  preacher  of  the  South,  Brother  Jas- 
per, uphold  with  all  his  ability  that  the  sun  stood  still  at 
Joshua's  command,  and  that  today  "the  sun  do  move!"  Far 
more  surprising  is  this  statement  in  the  new  Catholic  Encyclo- 
pedia under  "Faith,"  written  by  an  English  Dominican : 

"If,  now,  the  will  moves  the  intellect  to  consider  some  debat- 
able point — c.  g.,  the  Copernican  and  Ptolemaic  theories  of  the 
relationship  between  the  sun  and  the  earth — it  is  clear  that  the 
intellect  can  only  assent  to  one  of  these  views  in  proportion  that 


'Bailly:  II,  132,  note. 

"Flammarion  :   196-198.         'Shields:  60. 


99 


it  is  convinced  that  the  particular  view  is  true.  But  neither 
view  has,  as  far  as  we  can  know,  more  than  probable  truth, 
hence  of  itself  the  intellect  can  only  give  in  its  partial  adherence 
to  one  of  these  views,  it  must  always  be  precluded  from  abso- 
lute assent  by  the  possibility  that  the  other  may  be  right.  The 
fact  that  men  hold  more  tenaciously  to  one  of  these  than  the 
arguments  warrant  can  only  be  due  to  some  extrinsic  consider- 
ation, e.  g.,  that  it  is  absurd  not  to  hold  to  what  a  vast  majority 
of  men  hold." 

In  astronomical  thought  as  in  many  another  field,  science  and 
reason  have  had  a  hard  struggle  in  men's  minds  to  defeat  tra- 
dition and  the  weight  of  verbal  inspiration.  Within  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  opposition  to  this  doctrine  was  officially  weak- 
ened in  1757,  but  not  completely  ended  till  the  publication  of  the 
Index  in  1835 — the  first  edition  since  the  decrees  of  1616  and 
1619  which  did  not  contain  the  works  of  Copernicus,  Galileo, 
Foscarini,  a  Stunica  and  Kepler.  Since  then,  Roman  Catholic 
writers  have  been  particularly  active  in  defending  and  explain- 
ing the  positions  of  the  Church  in  these  matters.  They  have 
not  agreed  among  themselves  as  to  whether  the  infallibility  of 
the  Church  had  been  involved  in  these  condemnations,  nor  as 
to  the  reasons  for  them.  As  one  writer  has  summarized  these 
diverse  positions,1  they  first  claimed  that  Galileo  was  condemned 
not  for  upholding  a  heresy,  but  for  attempting  to  reconcile  these 
ideas  with  the  Scriptures, — though  in  fact  he  was  sentenced  spe- 
cifically for  heresy.  In  their  next  defense  they  declared  Gali- 
leo was  not  condemned  for  heresy,  but  for  contumacy  and  want 
.  of  respect  to  the  Pope.2  This  statement  proving  untenable, 
others  held  that  it  was  the  result  of  a  persecution  developing 
out  of  a  quarrel  between  Aristotelian  professors  and  those  pro- 
fessors who  favored  experiment, — a  still  worse  argument  for 
the  Church  itself.  Then  some  claimed  that  the  condemnation 
was  merely  provisional, — a  position  hardly  warranted  by  the 
wording  of  the  decrees  themselves  and  flatly  contradicted  by 
Father  Riccioli,  the  spokesman  of  the  Jesuit  authorities.3  More 
recently,  Roman  Catholics  have  held  that  Galileo  was  no  more 


White :  I,  159-167.  2See  di  Bruno :  Catholic  Belief,  286a. 

'Riccioli:  Apologia,  103. 

100 


a  victim  of  the  Roman  Church  than  of  the  Protestant — which 
fails  to  remove  the  blame  of  either.  The  most  recent  position 
is  that  the  condemnation  of  the  doctrine  by  the  popes  was  not 
as  popes  but  as  men  simply,  and  the  Church  was  not  commit- 
ted to  their  decision  since  the  popes  had  not  signed  the  decrees. 
But  two  noted  English  Catholics,  Roberts  and  Mivart,  publicly 
stated  in  1870  that  the  infallibility  of  the  papacy  was  fully  com- 
mitted in  these  condemnations  by  what  they  termed  incontro- 
vertible evidence.1 

One  present-day  Catholic  calls  the  action  of  the  Congrega- 
tions "a  theoretical  mistake;"2  another  admits  it  was  a  deplora- 
ble mistake,  but  practically  their  only  serious  one;3  and  a  third 
considers  it  "providential"  since  it  proved  conclusively  "that 
whenever  there  is  apparent  contradiction  between  the  truths  of 
science  and  the  truths  of  faith,  either  the  scientist  is  declaring 
as  proved  what  in  reality  is  a  mere  hypothesis,  or  the  theologian 
is  putting  forth  his  own  personal  views  instead  of  the  teaching 
of  the  Gospel."4  Few  would  accept  today,  however,  the  opinion 
of  the  anonymous  writer  in  the  Dublin  Reviezv  in  the  forties 
that  "to  the  Pontiffs  and  dignitaries  of  Rome  we  are  mainly  in- 
debted for  the  Copernican  system"  and  that  the  phrases  "heret- 
ical" and  "heresy"  in  the  sentence  of  1633  were  but  the  stylus 
curia,  for  it  was  termed  heresy  only  in  the  technical  sense.5 

The  majority  of  Protestants,  with  the  possible  exception  of 
the  Lutherans,  were  satisfied  with  the  probable  truth  of  the  Co- 
pernican doctrine  before  the  end  of  the  18th  century.  Down 
to  the  present  day,  however,  there  have  been  isolated  protests 
raised  against  it,  usually  on  technical  grounds  supported  by  ref- 
erence to  the  Scriptures.  DeMorgan  refers  to  one  such,  "An 
Inquiry  into  the  Copernican  System  .  .  .  wherein  it  is  proved 
in  the  clearest  manner,  that  the  earth  has  only  her  diurnal  mo- 
tion .  .  .  with  an  attempt  to  point  out  the  only  true  way 
whereby  mankind  can  receive  any  real  benefit  from  the  study 


I,    165.      See   the   answer   by   Wegg-Prosser :    Galileo   and   his 
Judges. 

2Donat:  183.        'Walsh:  Popes  and  Science,  17.        *Conway:  48. 
5Anon. :    Galileo — the  Roman  Congregation,  39,  60. 


IOI 


of  the  heavenly  bodies,  by  John  Cunningham,  London,  1789," 
DeMorgan  adds  that  "the  true  way  appears  to  be  the  treatment 
of  heaven  and  earth  as  emblematical  of  the  Trinity."1  Another, 
by  "Anglo-American,"  is  entitled  "Copernicus  Refuted ;  or  the 
True  Solar  System"  (Baltimore,  1846).  It  begins  thus: 

"One  of  these  must  go,  the  other  stand  still, 
It  matters  not  which,  so  choose  at  your  will ; 
But  when  you  find  one  already  stuck  fast, 
You've  only  got  Hobson's  choice  left  at  last." 

This  writer  admits  the  earth's  axial  rotation,  but  declares  the 
earth  is  fixed  as  a  pivot  in  the  center  of  the  universe,  because 
the  poles  of  the  earth  are  fixed  and  immovable,  and  that  the  sun 
as  in  the  Tychonic  scheme  encircles  the  earth  and  is  itself  en- 
circled by  five  planets.2  His  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Coper- 
nican  system  is  noteworthy :  it  was  originated  by  Pythagoras 
and  his  deciples  but  lay  neglected  because  it  was  held  to  be 
untenable  in  their  time ;  it  was  "revived  when  learning  was  at 
its  lowest  ebb  by  a  monk  in  his  cloister,  Copernicus,  who  in  ran- 
sacking the  contents  of  the  monastery  happened  to  lay  his  hands 
on  the  MS.  and  then  published  it  to  the  world  with  all  its  blun- 
ders and  imperfections  !"3  One  might  remark  that  the  Anglo- 
American's  own  learning  was  at  very  low  ebb. 

The  Tychonic  scheme  was  revived  also  some  years  later  by  a 
Dane,  Zytphen  (1856).4  Three  years  after,  an  assembly  of 
Lutheran  clergy  met  together  at  Berlin  to  protest  against  "sci- 
ence falsely  so-called,"5  but  were  brought  into  ridicule  by  Pas- 
tor Knap's  denunciations  of  the  Copernican  theory  as  abso- 
lutely incompatible  with  belief  in  the  Bible.  A  Carl  Schoepffer 
had  taken  up  the  defense  of  the  Tychonic  scheme  in  Berlin  be- 
fore this  (1854)  and  by  1868  his  lecture  was  in  its  seventh  edi- 
tion. In  it  he  sought  to  prove  that  the  earth  revolves  neither 
upon  its  own  axis  nor  yet  about  the  sun.  He  had  seen  Fou- 
cault's  pendulum  demonstration  of  the  earth's  movement,  but  he 
held  that  something  else,  as  yet  unexplained,  caused  the  devia- 
tion of  the  pendulum,  and  that  the  velocity  of  the  heavens 


*De  Morgan:  I,  172.  '"Anglo-American":  5-6.  'Ibid:   11. 

4De  Morgan  :  II,  335.  'White :  I,  150. 

I O2 


would  be  no  more  amazing  than  the  almost  incredible  velocity 
of  light  or  of  electricity.1  His  lecture,  curiously  enough,  fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  late  General  John  Watts  de  Peyster  of 
New  York,  who  had  it  translated  and  published  in  1900  together 
with  a  supplement  by  Frank  Allaben.2  Both  these  gentlemen  ac- 
cepted its  scientific  views  and  deductions,  but  the  General  refused 
to  go  as  far  as  his  colleague  in  the  latter's  enthusiastic  acceptance 
of  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  as  a  result  of  these 
statements.3  A  few  months  later,  they  published  a  supplemen- 
tary pamphlet  claiming  to  prove  the  possibility  of  the  sun's 
velocity  by  the  analogy  of  the  velocity  of  certain  comets.4  A 
Professor  J.  R.  Lange  of  California  (a  German),  attracted  by 
these  documents,  sent  them  his  own  lucubrations  on  this  sub- 
ject. He  considered  Newton's  doctrine  of  universal  attraction 
"nonsense,"  and  had  "absolute  proof"  in  the  fixity  of  the  Pole 
Star  that  the  earth  does  not  move.5  In  a  letter  to  General  de 
Peyster,  he  wrote :  "Let  us  hope  and  pray  that  the  days  of  the 
pernicious  Copernican  system  may  be  numbered,"6 — but  he  did 
not  specify  why  he  considered  it  pernicious:  The  General  was 
nearly  eighty  years  old  when  he  became  interested  in  these  mat- 
ters, and  he  did  not  live  long  thereafter  to  defend  his  position. 
His  biographers  make  no  mention  of  it.  The  other  men  seem 
almost  obsessed,  especially  Lange ; — like  the  Italian  painter,  Sin- 
dico,  who  bombarded  the  director  of  the  Paris  Observatory  in 
1878  with  many  letters  protesting  against  the  Copernican  sys- 
tem.7 

German  writers,  whether  Lutherans  or  not,  appear  to  have 
opposed  the  system  more  often  in  the  last  century  than  have 
the  writers  of  other  nationalities.  Besides  those  already  men- 
tioned, one  proposed  an  ingenious  scheme  in  which  the  sun 
moves  through  space  followed  by  the  planets  as  a  comet  is  by 


^choepffer:   The  Earth  Stands  Fast,  title-page,  6-7. 
"Ibid:   Supplement  by  Allaben,  21,  74. 
3Ibid :  Note  by  J.  W.  de  P.,  74. 
4De  Peyster  and  Allaben:  Algol,  preface. 

'Lange:   The  Copernican  System:   The  Greatest  Absurdity  in  the  His- 
tory of  Human  Thought. 
8De  Peyster  and  Allaben:  Algol,  74. 
7Sindico :  Refutation  du  Sysfeme  de  Copernic.   .    . 

103 


its  tail,  the  planets  revolving  in  a  plane  perpendicular  to  that  of 
the  sun's  path.  A  diagram  of  it  would  be  cone-shaped.  He 
included  in  this  pamphlet,  besides  a  list  of  his  own  books,  (all 
published  in  Leipsic),  a  list  of  twenty-six  titles  from  1758  to 
1883,  books  and  pamphlets  evidently  opposed  in  whole  or  in 
part  to  the  modern  astronomy,  and  seventeen  of  these  were  in 
German  or  printed  in  Germany.1  In  this  country  at  St.  Louis 
was  issued  an  Astronomische  Unterredung  (1873)  by 
J.  C.  W.  L. ;  according  to  the  late  President  White,  a  bitter 
attack  on  modern  astronomy  and  a  decision  by  the  Scriptures 
that  the  earth  is  the  principal  body  of  the  universe,  that  it 
stands  fixed,  and  that  the  sun  and  the  moon  only  serve  to  light 
it.2 

Such  statements  are  futile  in  themselves  nowadays,  and  are 
valuable  only  to  illustrate  the  advance  of  modern  thought  of 
which  these  are  the  little  eddies.  While  modern  astronomers 
know  far  more  than  Copernicus  even  dreamed  of,  much  of  his 
work  still  holds  true  today.  The  world  was  slow  to  accept  his 
system  because  of  tradition,  authority,  so-called  common  sense, 
and  its  supposed  incompatibility  with  scriptural  passages.  Cath- 
olic and  Protestant  alike  opposed  it  on  these  grounds ;  but  be- 
cause of  its  organization  and  authority,  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  had  far  greater  power  and  could  more  successfully 
hinder  and  delay  its  acceptance  than  could  the  Protestants. 
Consequently  the  system  won  favor  slowly  at  first  through  the 
indifference  of  the  authorities,  then  later  in  spite  of  their  active 
antagonism.  Scholars  believed  it  long  before  the  universities 
were  permitted  to  teach  it ;  and  the  rationalist  movement  of  the 
18th  century,  the  revolt  against  a  superstitious  religion,  helped 
to  overturn  the  age-old  conception  of  the  heavens  and  to  bring 
Newtonian-Copernicanism  into  general  acceptance. 

The  elements  of  this  traditional  conception  are  summarized 
in  the  fifth  book  of  Bodin's  Unwersoz  Nwtura  Theatrum,  a 
scholar's  account  of  astronomy  at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury.3 Man  in  his  terrestrial  habitation  occupies  the  center  of 

aTischner :  Le  Systeme  Solaire  se  Mouvant.     (1894). 

2White:  I,  151. 

*See  translated  sections  in  Appendix  C. 

104 


a  universe  created  solely  to  serve  him,  God  presides  over  all 
from  the  Empyrean  above,  sending  forth  his  messengers  the  an- 
gels to  guide  and  control  the  heavenly  bodies.  Such  had  been 
the  thought  of  Christians  for  more  than  a  thousand  years.  Then 
came  the  influence  of  a  new  science.  Tycho  Brahe  "broke  the 
crystal  spheres  of  Aristotle"1  by  his  study  of  the  comet  of  1572; 
Galileo's  telescopes  revealed  many  stars  hitherto  unknown,  and 
partly  solved  the  mysteries  of  the  Milky  Way ;  Kepler's  laws  ex- 
plained the  courses  of  the  planets,  and  Newton's  discovery  of  the 
universal  application  of  the  forces  of  attraction  relieved  the  an- 
gels of  their  duties  among  the  heavens.  Thinkers  like  Bruno 
proposed  the  possibility  of  other  systems  and  universes  besides 
the  solar  one  in  which  the  earth  belongs.  And  thus  not  only  did 
man  shrink  in  importance  in  his  own  eyes ;  but  his  conception  of 
the  heavens  changed  from  that  of  a  finite  place  inexplicably 
controlled  by  the  mystical  beings  of  a  supernatural  world,  to  one 
of  vast  and  infinite  spaces  traversed  by  bodies  whose  density  and 
mass  a  man  could  calculate,  whose  movements  he  could  foretell, 
and  whose  very  substance  he  could  analyze  by  the  science  of  to- 
day. This  dissolution  of  superstition,  especially  in  regard  to 
comets  was  notably  rapid  and  complete  after  the  comet 
of  1680.2  Thus  the  rationalist  movement  with  the  new 
science  opened  men's  minds  to  a  universe  composed  of  familiar 
substances  and  controlled  by  known  or  knowable  laws  with  no 
tinge  remaining  of  the  supernatural.  Today  a  man's  theological 
beliefs  are  not  shaken  by  the  discovery  of  a  new  satellite  or  even 
a  new  planet,  and  the  appearance  of  a  new  comet  merely  pro- 
vides the  newspaper  editor  with  the  subject  of  a  passing  jest. 

Yet  it  was  fully  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  publica- 
tion  of  the  De  Revolutionibus  before  its  system  met  with  the 
general  approval  of  scholars  as  well  as  of  mathematicians;  then 
nearly  a  generation  more  had  to  elapse/  before  it  was  openly 
taught  even  at  Oxford  where  the  Roman  Catholic  and  Lutheran 
Churches  had  no  control.  During  the  latter  part  of  this  period, 
readers  were  often  left  free  to  decide  for  themselves  as  to  the 
relative  merits  of  the  Tychonic  and  Copernican  or  Copernican- 


'Robinson:    107.         2Ibid :    119. 

105 


Cartesian  schemes.  But  it  took  fully  fifty  years  and  more,  be- 
sides, before  these  ideas  had  won  general  acceptance  by  the  com- 
mon people,  so  wedded  were  they  to  the  traditional  view 
through  custom  and  a  superstitious  reverence  for  the  Bible. 
Briefly  then,  the  De  Revolutionibus  appeared  in  1543 ;  and  quiet- 
ly won  some  supporters,  notably  Bruno,  Kepler  and  Galileo;  the 
Congregations  of  the  Index  specifically  opposed  it  in  1616  and 
1633 ;  however  it  continued  to  spread  among  scholars  and  oth- 
ers with  the  aid  of  Cartesianism  for  another  fifty  years  till  the 
appearance  of  Newton's  Principia  in  1687.  Then  its  acceptance 
rapidly  became  general  even  in  Catholic  Europe,  till  it  was  al- 
most a  commonplace  in  England  by  1743,  two  hundred  years 
after  its  first  formal  promulgation,  and  had  become  strong  enough 
in  Europe  to  cause  the  Congregations  in  1757  to  modify  their 
stand.  Thereafter  opposition  became  a  curiosity  rather  than  a 
significant  fact.  Only  the  Roman  Church  officially  delayed  its 
recognition  of  the  new  astronomy  till  the  absurdity  of  its  obso- 
lete position  was  brought  home  to  it  by  Canon  Settele's  appeal  in 
1820.  Fifteen  years  later  the  last  trace  of  official  condemnation 
was  removed,  a  little  over  two  hundred  years  after  the  decrees 
had  first  been  issued,  and  just  before  Bessel's  discovery  of 
stellar  parallax  at  length  answered  one  of  the  strongest  and  old- 
est arguments  against  the  system.  Since  then  have  come  many 
apologias  in  explanation  and  extenuation  of  the  Church's  decided 
stand  in  this  matter  for  so  many  generations. 

Though  Galileo  himself  was  forced  to  his  knees,  unable  to 
withstand  his  antagonists,  his  work  lived  on  after  him ;  he  and 
Copernicus,  together  with  Kepler  and  Newton  stand  out  both 
as  scientists  and  as  leaders  in  the  advance  of  intellectual  enlight- 
enment. The  account  of  their  work  and  that  of  their  less  well- 
known  supporters,  compared  with  that  of  their  antagonists, 
proves  the  truth  of  the  ancient  Greek  saying  which  Rheticus  used 
as  the  motto  for  the  Narratio  Priwia,  the  first  widely  known  ac- 
count of  the  Copernican  system:  "One  who  intends  to  phil- 
osophize must  be  free  in  mind." 


1 06 


APPENDIX    A. 
PTOLEMY  :  Syntoxis  Mat  hematic  a  (Almagest) 

'That  the  earth  has  no  movement  of  rotation,"  in  Opera 
Quce  Exstant  Omnia,  edidit  Heiberg,  Leipsic,  1898,  Bk.  I,  sec.  7 : 
(I,  21-25)  ;  compared  with  the  translation  into  French  by 
Halma,  Paris,  1813. 

By  proofs  similar  to  the  preceding,  it  is  shown  that  the  earth 
cannot  be  transported  obliquely  nor  can  it  be  moved  away  from 
the  center.  For,  if  that  were  so,  all  those  things  would  take 
place  which  would  happen  if  it  occupied  any  other  point  than 
that  of  the  center.  It  seems  unnecessary  to  me,  therefore,  to 
seek  out  the  cause  of  attraction  towards  the  center  when  it  is 
once  evident  from  the  phenomena  themselves,  that  the  earth 
occupies  the  center  of  the  universe  and  that  all  heavy  bodies 
are  borne  towards  it;  and  this  will  be  readily  understood  if  it 
is  remembered  that  the  earth  has  been  demonstrated  to  have  a 
spherical  shape,  and  according  to  what  we  have  said,  is  placed 
at  the  center  of  the  universe,  for  the  direction  of  the  fall  of 
heavy  bodies  (I  speak  of  their  own  motions)  is  always  and 
everywhere  perpendicular  to  an  uncurved  plane  drawn  tangent 
to  the  point  of  intersection.  Obviously  these  bodies  would  all 
meet  at  the  center  if  they  were  not  stopped  by  the  surface, 
since  a  straight  line  drawn  to  the  center  is  perpendicular:  to  a 
plane  tangent  to  the  sphere  at  that  point. 

Those  who  consider  it  a  paradox  that  a  mass  like  the  earth  is 
supported  on  nothing,  yet  not  moved  at  all,  appear  to  me  to  ar- 
gue according  to  the  preconceptions  they  get  from  what  they 
see  happening  to  small  bodies  about  them,  and  not  according  to 
what  is  characteristic  of  the  universe  as  a  whole,  and  this  is  the 
cause  of  their  mistake.  For  I  think  that  such  a  thing  would  not 
have  seemed  wonderful  to  them  any  longer  if  they  had  per- 
ceived that  the  earth,  great  as  it  is,  is  merely  a  point  in  compar- 
ison to  the  surrounding  body  of  the  heaven.  They  would  find 
that  it  is  possible  for  the  earth,  being  infinitely  small  relative  to 
the  universe,  to  be  held  in  check  and  fixed  by  the  forces  exer- 
cised over  it  equally  and  following  similar  directions  by  the 
universe,  which  is  infinitely  great  and  composed  of  similar  parts. 
There  is  neither  up  nor  down  in  the  universe,  for  that  cannot 
be  imagined  in  a  sphere.  As  to  the  bodies  which  it  encloses, 
by  a  consequence  of  their  nature  it  happens  that  those  that  are 
light  and  subtle  are  as  though  blown  by  the  wind  to  the  out- 
side and  to  the  circumference,  and  seem  to  appear  to  us  to  go 
up,  because  that  is  how  we  speak  of  the  space  above  our  heads 

107 


that  envelops  us.  It  happens  on  the  other  hand  that  heavy 
bodies  and  those  composed  of  dense  parts  are  drawn  towards 
the  middle  as  towards  a  center,  and  appear  to  us  to  fall  down, 
because  that  it  is  the  word  we  apply  to  what  is  beneath  our  feet 
in  the  direction  of  the  center  of  the  earth.  But  one  should  be- 
lieve that  they  are  checked  around  this  center  by  the  retarding 
effect  of  shock  and  of  friction.  It  would  be  admitted  then  that 
the  entire  mass  of  the  earth,  which  is  considerable  in  compari- 
son to  the  bodies  falling  on  it,  could  receive  these  in  their  fall 
without  acquiring  the  slightest  motion  from  the  shock  of  their 
weight  or  of  their  velocity.  But  if  the  earth  had  a  movement 
which  was  common  to  it  and  to  all  other  heavy  bodies,  it  would 
soon  seemingly  outstrip  them  as  a  result  of  its  weight,  thus 
leaving  the  animals  and  the  other  heavy  bodies  without  other 
support  than  the  air,  and  would  soon  touch  the  limits  of  the 
heaven  itself.  All  these  consequences  would  seem  most  ridic- 
ulous if  one  were  only  even  imagining  them. 

There  are  those  who,  while  they  admit  these  arguments  be- 
cause there  is  nothing  to  oppose  them,  pretend  that  nothing- 
prevents  the  supposition,  for  instance,  that  if  the  sky  is  motion- 
less, the  earth  might  turn  on  its  axis  from  west  to  east,  making 
this  revolution  once  a  day  or  in  a  very  little  less  time,  or  that, 
if  they  both  turn,  it  is  around  the  same  axis,  as  we  have  said, 
and  in  a  manner  conformable  to  the  relations  between  them 
which  we  have  observed. 

It  has  escaped  these  people  that  in  regard  to  the  appearances 
of  the  planets  themselves,  nothing  perhaps  prevents  the  earth 
from  having  the  simpler  motion;  but  they  do  not  realize  how 
very  ridiculous  their  opinion  is  in  view  of  what  takes  place 
around  us  and  in  the  air.  For  if  we  grant  them  that  the  light- 
est things  and  those  composed  of  the  subtlest  parts  do  not 
move,  which  would  be  contrary  to  nature,  while  those  that  are 
in  the  air  move  visibly  more  swiftly  than  those  that  are  terres- 
trial; if  we  grant  them  that  the  most  solid  and  heavy  bodies 
have  a  swift,  steady  movement  of  their  own,  though  it  is  true 
however  that  they  obey  impelling  forces  only  with  difficulty ; 
they  would  be  obliged  to  admit  that  the  earth  by  its  revolution 
has  a  movement  more  rapid  than  the  movements  taking  place 
around  it,  since  it  would  make  so  great  a  circuit  in  so  short  a 
time.  Thus  the  bodies  which  do  not  rest  on  it  would  appear 
always  to  have  a  motion  contrary  to  its  own,  and  neither  the 
clouds,  nor  any  missile  or  flying  bird  would  appear  to  go  to- 
wards the  east,  for  the  earth  would  always  outstrip  them  in 
this  direction,  and  would  anticipate  them  by  its  own  movement 
towards  the  east,  with  the  result  that  all  the  rest  would  appear 
to  move  backwards  towards  the  west. 

1 08 


If  they  should  say  that  the  atmosphere  is  carried  along  by 
the  earth  with  the  same  speed  as  the  earth's  own  revolution,  it 
would  be  no  less  true  that  the  bodies  contained  therein  would 
not  have  the  same  velocity.  Or  if  they  were  swept  along  with 
the  air,  no  longer  would  anything  seem  to  precede  or  to  follow, 
but  all  would  always  appear  stationary,  and  neither  in  flight 
nor  in  throwing  would  any-  ever  advance  or  retreat.  That  is, 
however,  what  we  see  happening,  since  neither  the  retardation 
nor  the  acceleration  of  anything  is  traceable  to  the  movement 
of  the  earth. 

APPENDIX    B. 
"To  His  HOLINESS,  PAUL  III,  SUPREME  PONTIFF, 

PREFACE  BY  NICHOLAS  COPERNICUS  TO  His  BOOKS  ON 
REVOLUTIONS." 

(A  translation  of  the  Prafatio  in  Copernicus:  De  Revolution- 

ibus;  pp.  3-8.) 

"I  can  certainly  well  believe,  most  holy  Father,  that,  while 
mayhap  a  few  will  accept  this  my  book  which  I  have  written  con- 
cerning the  revolutions  of  the  spheres  of  the  world,  ascribing 
certain  motions  to  the  sphere  of  the  earth,  people  will  clamor 
that  I  ought  to  be  cast  out  at  once  for  such  an  opinion.  Nor  are 
my  ideas  so  pleasing  to  me  that  I  will  not  carefully  weigh  what 
others  decide  concerning  them.  And  although  I  know  that  the 
meditations  of  philosophers  are  remote  from  the  opinions  of  the 
unlearned,  because  it  is  their  aim  to  seek  truth  in  all  things  so 
far  as  it  is  permitted  by  God  to  the  human  reason,  nevertheless 
I  think  that  opinions  wholly  alien  to  the  right  ought  to  be  driven 
out.  Thus  when  I  considered  with  myself  what  an  absurd  fairy- 
tale people  brought  up  in  the  opinion,  sanctioned  by  many  ages, 
that  the  earth  is  motionless  in  the  midst  of  the  heaven,  as  if  it 
were  the  center  of  it,  would  think  it  if  I  were  to  assert  on  the 
contrary  that  the  earth  is  moved ;  I  hesitated  long  whether  I 
would  give  to  the  light  my  commentaries  composed  in  proof  of 
this  motion,  or  whether  it  would  indeed  be  more  satisfactory  to 
follow  the  example  of  the  Pythagoreans  and  various  others  who 
were  wont  to  pass  down  the  mysteries  of  philosophy  not  by 
books,  but  from  hand  to  hand  only  to  their  friends  and  relatives, 
as  the  letter  of  Lysis  to  Hipparchus  proves.1  But  verily  they 
seemed  to  me  not  to  have  done  this,  as  some  think,  from  any  dis- 


'See  Prowe:  Nic.  Cop.:  Ill;  128-137. 

109 


like  to  spreading  their  teachings,  but  lest  the  most  beautiful 
things  and  those  investigated  with  much  earnestness  by  great 
men,  should  be  despised  by  those  to  whom  spending  good  work 
on  any  book  is  a  trouble  unless  they  make  profit  by  it ;  or  if  they 
are  incited  to  the  liberal  study  of  philosophy  by  the  exhortations 
and  the  example  of  others,  yet  because  of  the  stupidity  of  their 
wits  they  are  no  more  busily  engaged  among  philosophers  than 
drones  among  bees.  When  therefore  I  had  pondered  these  mat- 
ters, the  scorn  which  was  to  be  feared  on  account  of  the  novelty 
and  the  absurdity  of  the  opinion  impelled  me  for  that  reason  to 
set  aside  entirely  the  book  already  drawn  up. 

"But  friends,  in  truth,  have  brought  me  forth  into  the  light 
again,  though  I  long  hesitated  and  am  still  reluctant;  among 
these  the  foremost  was  Nicholas  Schonberg,  Cardinal  of  Capua, 
celebrated  in  all  fields  of  scholarship.  Njext  to  him  is  that 
scholar,  my  very  good  friend,  Tiedeman  Giese,  Bishop  of  Culm, 
most  learned  in  all  sacred  matters,  (as  he  is),  and  in  all  good 
sciences.  He  has  repeatedly  urged  me  and,  sometimes  even  with 
censure,  implored  me  to  publish  this  book  and  to  suffer  it  to  see 
the  light  at  last,  as  it  has  lain  hidden  by  me  not  for  nine  years 
alone,  but  also  into  the  fourth  'novenium'.  Not  a  few  other 
scholars  of  eminence  also  pleaded  with  me,  exhorting  me  that  I 
should  no  longer  refuse  to  contribute  my  book  to  the  common 
service  of  mathematicians  on  account  of  an  imagined  dread. 
They  said  that  however  absurd  in  many  ways  this  my  doctrine 
of  the  earth's  motion  might  now  appear,  so  much  the  greater 
would  be  the  admiration  and  goodwill  after  people  had  seen  by 
the  publications  of  my  commentaries  the  mists  of  absurdities 
rolled  away  by  the  most  lucid  demonstrations.  Brought  to  this 
hope,  therefore,  by  these  pleaders,  I  at  last  permitted  my 
friends,  as  they  had  long  besought  me,  to  publish  this  work. 

"But  perhaps  your  Holiness  will  not  be  so  shocked  that  I 
have  dared  to  bring  forth  into  the  light  these  my  lucubrations, 
having  spent  so  much  work  in  elaborating  them,  that  I  did  not 
hesitate  even  to  commit  to  a  book  my  conclusions  about  the 
earth's  motion,  but  that  you  will  particularly  wish  to  hear  from 
me  how  it  came  into  my  mind  to  dare  to  imagine  any  motion  of 
the  earth,  contrary  to  the  accepted  opinion  of  mathematicians 
and  in  like  manner  contrary  to  common  sense.  So  I  do  not  wish 
to  conceal  from  your  Holiness  that  nothing  else  moved  me  to 
consider  some  other  explanation  for  the  motions  of  the  spheres  of 
the  universe  than  what  I  knew,  namely  that  mathematicians  did 
not  agree  among  themselves  in  their  examinations  of  these  things. 
For  in  the  first  place,  they  are  so  completely  undecided  concern- 
ing the  motion  of  the  sun  and  of  the  moon  that  they  could  not 


no 


observe  and  prove  the  constant  length  of  the  great  year.1  Next, 
in  determining  the  motions  of  both  these  and  the  five  other  plan- 
ets, they  did  not  use  the  same  principles  and  assumptions  or  even 
the  same  demonstrations  of  the  appearances  of  revolutions  and 
motions.  For  some  used  only  homocentric  circles ;  others,  eccen- 
trics and  epicycles,  which  on  being  questioned  about,  they  them- 
selves did  not  fully  comprehend.  For  those  who  put  their  trust 
in  homocentrics,  although  they  proved  that  other  diverse  motions 
could  be  derived  from  these,  nevertheless  they  could  by  no 
means  decide  on  any  thing  certain  which  in  the  least  correspond- 
ed to  the  phenomena.  But  these  who  devised  eccentrics,  even 
though  they  seem  for  the  most  part  to  have  represented  appar- 
ent motions  by  a  number  [of  eccentrics]  suitable  to  them,  yet 
in  the  meantime  they  have  admitted  quite  a  few  which  appear 
to  contravene  the  first  principles  of  equality  of  motion.  An- 
other notable  thing,  that  there  is  a  definite  symmetry  between 
the  form  of  the  universe  and  its  parts,  they  could  not  devise  or 
construct  from  these;  but  it  is  with  them  as  if  a  man  should 
take  from  different  places,  hands,  feet,  a  head  and  other  mem- 
bers, in  the  best  way  possible  indeed,  but  in  no  way  comparable 
to  a  single  body,  and  in  no  respect  corresponding  to  each  other, 
so  that  a  monster  rather  than  a  man  would  be  constructed  from 
them.  Thus  in  the  process  of  proof,  which  they  call  a  system, 
they  are  found  to  have  passed  over  some  essential,  or  to  have 
admitted  some  thing  both  strange  and  scarcely  relevant.  This 
would  have  been  least  likely  to  have  happened  to  them  if  they 
had  followed  definite  principles.  For  if  the  hypotheses  they 
assumed  were  not  fallacious,  everything  which  followed  out  of 
them  would  have  been  verified  beyond  a  doubt.  However  ob- 
scure may  be  what  I  now  say,  nevertheless  in  its  own  place  it 
will  be  made  more  clear. 

"When  therefore  I  had  long  considered  this  uncertainty  of 
traditional  mathematics,  it  began  to  weary  me  that  no  more  def- 
inite explanation  of  the  movement  of  the  world  machine  estab- 
lished in  our  behalf  by  the  best  and  most  systematic  builder  of 
all,  existed  among  the  philosophers  who  had  studied  so  exactly 
in  other  respects  the  minutest  details  in  regard  to  the  sphere. 
Wherefore  I  took  upon  myself  the  task  of  re-reading  the  books 
of  all  the  philosophers  which  I  could  obtain,  to  seek  out  whether 
any  one  had  ever  conjectured  that  the  motions  of  the  spheres 
of  the  universe  were  other  than  they  supposed  who  taught 
mathematics  in  the  schools.  And  I  found  first  that,  according  to 
Cicero,  Nicetas  had  thought  the  earth  was  moved.  Then  later 
^discovered  according  to  Plutarch  that  certain  others  had  held 

*«.  e.f  the  15,000  solar  years  in  which  all  the  heavenly  bodies  complete 
their  circuits  and  return  to  their  original  positions. 

Ill 


the  same  opinion;  and  in  order  that  this  passage  may  be  avail- 
able to  all,  I  wish  to  write  it  down  here : 

"But  while  some  say  the  earth  stands  still,  Philolaus 
the  Pythagorean  held  that  it  is  moved  about  the  element 
of  fire  in  an  oblique  circle,  after  the  same  manner  of 
motion  that  the  sun  and  moon  have.  Heraclides  of 
Pontus  and  Ecphantus  the  Pythagorean  assign  a  mo- 
tion to  the  earth,  not  progressive,  but  after  the  man- 
ner of  a  wheel  being  carried  on  its  own  axis.  Thus 
the  earth,  they  say,  turns  itself  upon  its  own  center 
from  west  to  east."1 

When  from  this,  therefore,  I  had  conceived  its  possibility 
I  myself  also  began  to  meditate  upon  the  mobility  of  the  earth. 
And  although  the  opinion  seemed  absurd,  yet  because  I  knew 
the  liberty  had  been  accorded  to  others  before  me  of  imagining 
whatsoever  circles  they  pleased  to  explain  the  phenomena  of  the 
stars,  I  thought  I  also  might  readily  be  allowed  to  experiment 
whether,  by  supposing  the  earth  to  have  some  motion,  stronger 
demonstrations  than  those  of  the  others  could  be  found  as  to 
the  revolution  of  the  celestial  sphere. 

Thus,  supposing  these  motions  which  I  attribute  to  the  earth 
later  on  in  this  book,  I  found  at  length  by  much  and  long  obser- 
vation, that  if  the  motions  of  the  other  planets  were  added  to 
the  rotation  of  the  earth  and  calculated  as  for  the  revolution  of 
that  planet,  not  only  the  phenomena  of  the  others  followed  from 
this,  but  also  it  so  bound  together  both  the  order  and  magnitude 
of  all  the  planets  and  the  spheres  and  the  heaven  itself,  that  in 
no  single  part  could  one  thing  be  altered  without  confusion  among 
the  other  parts  and  in  all  the  universe.  Hence,  for  this  reason,  in 
the  course  of  this  work  I  have  followed  this  system,  so  that  in  the 
first  book  I  describe  all  the  positions  of  the  spheres  together  with 
the  motions  I  attribute  to  the  earth ;  thus  this  book  contains  a 
kind  of  general  disposition  of  the  universe.  Then  in  the  re- 
maining books,  I  bring  together  the  motions  of  the  other  plan- 
ets and  all  the  spheres  with  the  mobility  of  the  earth,  so  that  it 
can  thence  be  inferred  to  what  extent  the  motions  and  appear- 
ances of  the  other  planets  and  spheres  can  be  solved  by  attribu- 
ting motion  to  the  earth.  Nor  do  I  doubt  that  skilled  and  schol- 
arly mathematicians  will  agree  with  me  if,  what  philosophy 
requires  from  the  beginning,  they  will  examine  and  judge,  not 
casually  but  deeply,  what  I  have  gathered  together  in  this  book  to 
prove  these  things.  In  order  that  learned  and  unlearned  may 
alike  see  that  in  no  way  whatsoever  I  evade  judgment,  I  prefer 

"Plutarch:  Moralia:  De  Phcitis  Philosophorum,  Lib.  Ill,  c.  13  (V.  326). 
112 


P  R  XL  I  A  T  I  O    A  V  T  H  O  R  IS. 

rent  circuios  ad  demonftrandum  phenomena  aftrorum  .  Exilti- 
mavi  mihi  quoquc  facile  p<f  nnitti,  ut  cxpenrem,  an  pofito  terra;  ali- 
quo  menu  firmiorcs  dcmonftrationes,  quam  iilorum  client,  invem- 
n  in  rcvolutione  orhium  cxlefhum  poflent. 

Atquc  ica  ego  policis  motibus,  quos  terra:  mfhx  m  opere  tribuo, 
inuka  &  longa  obfcrvationc  tandem  rcpcn,  quod  li  reliquorum  ly- 
dcrum  err  annum  motus,  ad  terra;  circulanoncm  conferantur,  &: 
ftipputenturpro  cujiifqucrydcnsrcvoliitionc,  non  modo  iilorum 
phenomena  indeiequantur.fcd  Scrydcrum  atqueorbium  omnium 
ordines,  magmtudincs,  &  ca^lum  ipfum  ita  conncctat  ,  ut  m  nulla 
fin  partc  poiTit  tranfpom  aliquid,  fine  rcliquarum  partuim,  ac  totius 
umvcrfhatis  confulione.  Promdc  quoquc  &  in  progreflu  opens 
hunc  fccutus  fum  ordinem  utin  primo  libro  defcribam  omncs  pofi- 
tiones  orbium,  cum  terra?,  quos  ci  tribuo,  motibus*  ut  is  liber  con- 
tineat  communcm  quafi  cenftitutionem  umverfi.  In  rcliquis  vcro 
libris  poftea  conf'cro  reliquorum  fydcrum  atque  omnium  orbium, 
motus,  cum  terra:  mobilitate,  ut  inde  colligi  poffit,  quatenus  reli- 
quorum fyderum  atque  orbium  motus  &  apparently  fal  van  pofBnt, 
fi  ad  terra;  motus  conferantur.  Ncque  dubito,  qumingcnioli  atque 
c'odli  Mathematici  mihi  aftipularun  lint,  fi  quod  haec  philofopliia  la 
primisexigit,  noflo'biter,Icdpenitus,caqua;  ad  harum  rerum  dc- 
monftrationem  a  me  mhacoperc,  adferuntur,  cognofcercatqtfc 
cxpendere  voluennt.  Vt  vcro  printer  doviti  atque  mdo&ividerenr, 
me  nullius  omnmo  fubterfugere  judicium  ,  malui  mx  -Saftitati, 
quamcutquamaltcnhas.mcas  lucubrationes  dedicate,  proptcrea 
quod  &m  hoc  remotiirangul(3  torrac,m  quo  ego  ago,ordims  digrii- 
tare,  &  htcrarum  omnium  atque  Atathcmatices  etiam  aiftore,  cmi- 
ncnnfs.  habeans,ut  facile  tua  authontate  i<cjudicio  calumniantium 
morfusrepnmcrcpoflis,ctfi  m.proverbiout,  non  efle  remctlium 
adycrfiis  S'ycophanra-  morfiim. 

Sifort^le  en*nt  ^taTaioAax^acii  cun^mniiynMathc 
rriinfJ&me,tfi  Jc  iljis  judicuim  iibi  (uinunc  5yropjer_ 
'     luum  ryopofitum  detomtm  ,  au 


A  photographic  facsimile  (reduced)  of  a  page  from  Mulier's  edition 
(1617)  as  "coi-rected"  according  to  the  Monitum  of  the  Congregations 
in  1620.  The  first  writer  merely  underlined  the  passage  with  marginal 
comment  that  this  was  to  he  deleted  by  ecclesiastical  order.  The  sec- 
ond writer  scratched  out  the  passage  and  refered  to  the  second  volume  of 
Riccioli's  Aluunicstum  Novum  for  the  text  of  the  order.  The  earlier 
writer  was  probably  the  librarian  of  the  Florentine  convent  from  which 
this  book  came,  and  wrote  this  soon  after  1620.  The  later  writer  did 
his  work  after  1651,  when  Riccioli's  book  was  published.  This  copy  of 
the  f)e  Revolutionibus  is  now  in  the  Dartmouth  College  Library. 


to  dedicate  these  my  lucubrations  to  your  Holiness  rather  than 
to  any  one  else;  especially  because  even  in  this  very  remote 
corner  of  the  earth  in  which  I  live,  you  are  held  so  very  eminent 
by  reason  of  the  dignity  of  your  position  and  also  for  your  love 
of  all  letters  and  of  mathematics  that,  by  your  authority  and 
your  decision,  you  can  easily  suppress  the  malicious  attacks  of 
calumniators,  even  though  proverbially  there  is  no  remedy 
against  the  attacks  of  sycophants. 

If  perchance  there  should  be  foolish  speakers  who,  together 
with  those  ignorant  of  all  mathematics,  will  take  it  upon  them- 
selves to  decide  concerning  these  things,  and  because  of  some 
place  in  the  Scriptures  wickedly  distorted  to  their  purpose, 
should  dare  to  assail  this  my  work,  they  are  of  no  importance 
to  me,  to  such  an  extent  do  I  despise  their  judgment  as  rash.  For 
it  is  not  unknown  that  Lactantius,  the  writer  celebrated  in  other 
ways  but  very  little  in  mathematics,  spoke  somewhat  childishly  of 
the  shape  of  the  earth  when  he  derided  those  who  declared  the 
earth  had  the  shape  of  a  ball.1  So  it  ought  not  to  surprise  stu- 
dents if  such  should  laugh  at  us  also.  Mathematics  is  written  for 
mathematicians  to  whom  these  our  labors,  if  I  am  not  mistaken, 
will  appear  to  contribute  something  even  to  the  ecclesiastical 
state  the  headship  of  which  your  Holiness  now  occupies.  For  it 
is  not  so  long  ago  under  Leo  X  when  the  question  arose  in  the 
Lateran  Council  about  correcting  the  Ecclesiastical  Calendar.  It 
was  left  unsettled  then  for  this  reason  alone,  that  the  length  of 
the  year  and  of  the  months  and  the  movements  of  the  sun  and 
moon  had  not  been  satisfactorily  determined.  From  that  time 
on,  I  have  turned  my  attention  to  the  more  accurate  observation 
of  these,  at  the  suggestion  of  that  most  celebrated  scholar,  Fath- 
er Paul,  a  bishop  from  Rome,  who  was  the  leader  then  in  that 
matter.  What,  however,  I  may  have  achieved  in  this,  I  leave  to 
the  decision  of  your  Holiness  especially,  and  to  all  other  learned 
mathematicians.  And  lest  I  seem  to  your  Holiness  to  promise 
more  about  the  value  of  this  work  than  I  can  perform,  I  now 
pass  on  to  the  undertaking. 

APPENDIX    C 

THE  DRAMA  OF  UNIVERSAL  NATURE:  in  which  are  considered 
the  efficient  causes  and  the  ends  of  all  things,  discussed  in  a 
connected  series  of  five  books,  by  JEAN  BODIN,  (Frankfort, 
1597). 

Book  V :  On  the  Celestial  Bodies :  their  number,  movement,  size, 
harmony  and  distances  compared  with  themselves  and  with 
the  earth.  Sections  1  and  10  (in  part)  and  12  (entire). 

'These  two  sentences  the  Congregations  in  1620  ordered  struck  out,  as 
part  of  their  "corrections."  115 


(BODIN,  JEAN:  Universes  Natures  Theatrum  in  quo  rerum  om- 
nium effectrices  causa  et  fines  contemplantur,  et  continue?  se- 
ries quinque  libris  discutiuntur.  Frankfort,  1597.  Book  V 
translated  into  English  by  the  writer  and  compared  with  the 
French  translation  by  Frangois  de  Fougerolles,  (Lyons,  1597). 

Section  1:    On  the  definition  and  the  number  of  the  spheres. 

MYSTAGOGUE:.  .  .Now  to  prove  that  the  heavens  have  a  na- 
ture endowed  with  intelligence  I  need  no  other  argument  than 
that  by  which  Theophrastus  and  Alexander  prove  they  are  liv- 
ing, for,  they  say,  if  the  heavens  did  not  have  intelligence,  they 
would  be  greatly  inferior  in  dignity  and  excellence  to  men. 
That  is  why  Aben-Ezra,1  having  interpreted  the  Hebrew  of  these 
two  words  of  the  Psalm :  "The  heavens  declare,"  has  written  that 
the  phrase  Sapperim  (declare)  in  the  judgment  of  all  Hebrews 
is  appropriate  to  such  great  intelligence.  Also  he  who  said 
"When  the  morning  stars  sang  together  and  shouted  for  joy,"2 
indicated  a  power  endowed  with  intelligence,  as  did  the  Master 
of  Wisdom3  also  when  he  said  that  God  created  the  heavens 
with  intelligence. 

THEODORE.  I  have  learned  in  the  schools  that  the  spheres  are 
not  moved  of  themselves  but  that  they  have  separate  intelli- 
gences who  incite  them  to  movement. 

MYST.  That  is  the  doctrine  of  Aristotle.  But  Theophrastus 
and  Alexander,4  (when  they  teach  that  the  spheres  are  animated 
bodies)  explain  adequately  that  the  spheres  are  agitated  by  their 
own  coessential  soul.  For  if  the  sky  were  turned  by  an  intelli- 
gence external  to  it,  its  movement  would  be  accidental  with  the 
result  that  it,  and  the  stars  with  it,  would  not  be  moved  other- 
wise, than  as  a  body  without  soul.  But  accidental  motion  is  vio- 
lent. And  nothing  violent  in  nature  can  be  of  long  duration. 
On  the  contrary  there  is  nothing  of  longer  duration,  nor  more 
constant,  than  the  movement  of  the  heavens. 

THEO.    What  do  you  call  fixed  stars? 

MYST.  Celestial  beings  who  are  gifted  with  intelligence  and 
with  light,  and  who  are  in  continual  motion.  This  is  sufficiently 
indicated  by  the  words  of  Daniel5  when  he  wrote,  that  the  souls 
of  those  who  have  walked  justly  in  this  life,  and  who  have 
brought  men  back  to  the  path  of  virtue,  all  have  their  seat  and 

*As  Rabbi  David  testified  on  the  19th  Psalm  [these  footnotes  are  by 
Bodin], 

2Job:  38.       •  "Proverbs. 

4Metaphysics :  II.  c.  6,  de  Coelo.     I.  c.  6. 
5In  his  last  chapter. 

116 


dwelling  (like  the  gleaming  stars)  among  the  heavens.  By  these 
words  one  can  plainly  understand  the  essence  and  figure  of  the 
angels  as  well  as  of  the  celestial  beings ;  for  while  other  beings 
have  their  places  in  this  universe  assigned  to  them  for  their  hab- 
itation, as  the  fish  the  sea,  the  cattle  the  fields,  and  the  wild 
beasts  the  mountains  and  forests,  even  as  Origen,1  Eusebius,  and 
Diodorus  say,  so  the  stars  are  assigned  positions  in  the  heavens. 
This  can  also  be  understood  by  the  curtains  of  the  tabernacle 
which  Moses,  the  great  Lawgiver,  had  ornamented  with  the  im- 
ages of  cherubim  showing  that  the  heavens  were  indicated  by 
the  angelic  faces  of  the  stars.  While  St.  Augustine,2  Jerome,3 
Thomas  Aquinas4  and  Scotus  most  fitly  called  this  universe  a 
being,  nevertheless  Albertus,  Damascenus,  and  Thomas  Aquinas 
deny  that  the  heavenly  bodies  are  animated.  But  Thomas  Aquin- 
as shows  himself  in  this  inconsistent  and  contradictory,  for  he 
confesses  that  spiritual  substances  are  united  with  the  heavenly 
bodies,  which  could  not  be  unless  they  were  united  in  the  same 
hypostasis  of  an  animated  body.  If  this  body  is  animated,  it 
must  necessarily  be  living  and  either  rational  or  irrational.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  this  spiritual  substance  does  not  make  the 
same  hypostasis  with  the  celestial  body,  it  will  necessarily  be  that 
the  movement  of  the  sky  is  accidental,  as  coming  from  the  mover 
outside  to  the  thing  moved,  no  more  nor  less  than  the  movement 
of  a  wheel  conies  from  the  one  who  turns  it :  As  this  is  ab- 
surd, what  follows  from  it  is  necessarily  absurd  also. 

THEO.    How  many  spheres  are  there? 

MYST.  It  is  difficult  to  determine  their  number  because  of  the 
variety  of  opinions  among  the  authorities,  each  differing  from 
the  other,  and  because  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  proofs  of  such 
things.  For  Eudoxus  has  stated  that  the  spheres  with  their 
deferents  are  not  more  than  three  and  twenty  in  number.  Calip- 
pus  has  put  it  at  thirty,  and  Aristotle5  at  forty-seven,  which 
Alexander  Aphrodisiensis6  has  amended  by  adding  to  it  two  more 
on  the  advice  of  Sosigenes.  Ptolemy  holds  that  there  are  31 
celestial  spheres  not  including  the  bodies  of  the  planets.  Johan 
Reg-iomontanus  says  33,  an  opinion  which  is  followed  by  nearly 
all,  because  in  the  time  of  Ptolemy  they  did  not  yet  know  that 
the  eighth  sphere  and  all  the  succeeding  ones  are  carried  around 
by  the  movement  of  the  trepidation.  Thus  he  held  that  the  moon 


is  confirmed  by  Pico  of  Mirandola:  Heptaplus :  Bk.  V. 
'Enchiridion :  cap.  43;  Gen.:  2  and  18. 

'On  Psalm:  Audite  cceli.        4Summa:  pt.  1,  art.  3,  ques.  70. 
'Metaphy.  XII. 

'In   his   commentaries   on   Book   XII   of    Metaph.    where   he   gives   the 
opinion  of  Calippus  and  Eudoxus. 

117 


has  five  orbits,  Mercury  six,  Venus,  Mars,  Jupiter,  and  Saturn 
each  four,  aside  from  the  bodies  of  the  planets  themselves,  for 
beyond  these  are  still  the  spheres  and  deferents  of  the  eighth 
and  ninth  spheres.  But  Copernicus,  reviving  Eudoxus'  idea, 
held  that  the  earth  moved  around  the  motionless  sun ;  and  he  has 
also  removed  the  epicycles  with  the  result  that  he  has  greatly 
reduced  their  number,  so  that  one  can  scarcely  find  eight  spheres 
remaining. 

THEO.  What  should  one  do  with  such  a  variety  of  opinions? 

MYST.  Have  recourse  to  the  sacred  fountain  of  the  Hebrews 
tQ  search  out  the  mysteries  of  a  thing  so  deeply  hidden  from 
man ;  for  from  them  we  may  obtain  an  absolutely  certain  de- 
cision. The  Tabernacle  which  the  great  Lawgiver  Moses  or- 
dered to  be  made1  was  like  the  Archetype  of  the  universe,  with 
its  ten  curtains  placed  around  it  each  decorated  with  the  figures 
of  cherubim  thus  representing  the  ten  heavens  with  the  beauty 
of  their  resplendent  stars.  And  even  though  Aben-Ezra  did  not 
know  of  the  movement  of  trepidation,  nevertheless  he  inter- 
preted this  passage,  "The  heavens  are  the  work  of  Thy  fingers" 
as  indicating  the  number  of  the  ten  celestial  spheres.  The  Py- 
thagoreans seem  also  to  have  agreed  upon  the  same  number 
since,  besides  the  earth  and  the  eight  heavens,  they  imagine  a 
sphere  Anticthon  because  they  did  not  then  clearly  understand 
the  celestial  movements.  They  thought  however,  all  should  be 
embraced  in  the  tenth. 

THEO.  The  authority  of  such  writers  has  indeed  so  great 
weight  with  me  that  I  place  their  statements  far  in  advance  of 
the  arguments  of  all  others.  Nevertheless  if  it  can  be  done,  I 
should  wish  to  have  this  illustrated  and  confirmed  by  argument 
in  order  to  satisfy  those  who  believe  nothing  except  on  absolute 
proof. 

MYST.  It  can  indeed  be  proved  that  there  are  ten  mobile 
spheres  in  which  the  fiery  bodies  accomplish  their  regular 
courses.  Yet  by  these  arguments  that  ultimate,  motionless 
sphere  which  embraces  and  encircles  all  from  our  terrestial  abode 
to  its  circumference  within  its  crystalline  self,  encompassing 
plainly  the  utmost  shores  and  limits  of  the  universe,  cannot  be 
proved.  For  as  it  has  been  shown  before  [in  Book  I]  the 
elemental  world  was  inundated  by  celestial  waters  from  above. 
Nor  can  it  apparently  be  included  in  the  number  of  the  spheres 
since  (as  we  will  point  out  later)  as  great  a  distance  exists  be- 
tween it  and  the  nearest  sphere  as  between  the  ocean  and  the 
starry  heaven.  Furthermore  it  has  been  said  before  that  the  es- 


*Ex.  XVIII  and  following.     Philo  Judaeus  in  the  Allegories. 
lift 


sence  of  the  spheres  consists  of  fire  and  water  which  is  not  fitting 
for  the  celestial  waters  above. 

THEO.  By  what  arguments  then  can  it  be  proved  there  are  ten 
spheres  ? 

MYST.  The  ancients  knew  well  that  there  were  the  seven 
spheres  of  the  planets,  and  an  eighth  sphere  of  the  fixed  stars 
which,  down  to  the  time  of  Eudoxus  and  Meto,  they  thought  had 
but  one  simple  movement.  These  men  were  the  first  who  per- 
ceived by  observation  that  the  fixed  stars  were  carried  back- 
ward quite  contrary  to  the  movement  of  the  Primum  Mobile. 
After  them  came  Timochares,  Hipparchus,  and  Menelaus,  and 
later  Ptolemy,  who  confirmed  these  observations  perceiving  that 
the  fixed  stars  (which  people  had  hitherto  thought  were  fixed  in 
their  places)  had  been  separated  from  their  station.  For  this 
reason  they  thought  best  to  add  a  ninth  sphere  to  the  eight  in- 
ferior ones.  Much  later  an  Arabian  and  a  Spanish  king,  Men- 
sor  and  Alphonse,  great  students  of  the  celestial  sciences,  in  their 
observations  noticed  that  the  eighth  sphere  with  the  seven  fol- 
lowing moved  in  turning  from  the  north  to  the  east,  then 
towards  the  south,  and  so  to  the  west,  finally  returning  to  the 
north,  and  that  such  a  movement  was  completed  in  7000  years. 
This  Johannus  Regiomontanus,  a  Franconian,  has  proved,  with 
a  skill  hitherto  equalled  only  by  that  of  those  who  proved  the 
ninth  sphere,  which  travels  from  west  to  east.  From  this  it  is 
necessarily  concluded  that  there  are  ten  spheres. 

THEO.    Why  so? 

MYST.  Because  every  natural  body1  has  but  one  movement 
which  is  its  own  by  nature;  all  others  are  either  voluntary  or 
through  violence,  contrary  to  the  nature  of  a  mobile  object;  for 
just  as  a  stone  cannot  of  its  own  impulse  ascend  and  descend, 
so  one  and  the  same  sphere  cannot  of  itself  turn  from  the  east 
to  the  west  and  from  the  west  to  the  east  and  still  less  from  the 
north  to  the  south  and  south  to  north. 

THEO.    What  then? 

MYST.  It  follows  from  this  that  the  extremely  rapid  move- 
ment by  which  all  the  spheres  are  revolved  in  twenty- four  hours, 
belongs  to  the  Primum  Mobile,  which  we  call  the  tenth  sphere, 
and  which  carries  with  it  all  the  nine  lesser  spheres ;  that  the 
second  or  planetary  movement,  that  is,  from  west  to  east,  is 
communicated  to  the  lesser  spheres  and  belongs  to  the  ninth 
sphere ;  that  the  third  movement,  resembling  a  person  stagger- 
ing, belongs  to  the  eighth  sphere  with  which  it  affects  the  other 
lesser  spheres  and  makes  them  stagger  in  a  measure  outside  of 
the  poles,  axes  and  centres  of  the  greater  spheres. 


"Aristotle:  Metaph.  II  and  XII  and  de  Coelo  I. 

119 


Section  10:  On  the  position  of  the  universe  according  to  its 
divisions. 

*     *     *     * 

THEO.  Does  it  not  also  concern  Physics  to  discuss  those 
things  that  lie  outside  the  universe? 

MYST.  If  there  were  any  natural  body  beyond  the  heavens, 
most  assuredly  it  would  concern  Physics,  that  is,  the  observer 
and  student  of  nature.  But  in  the  book  of  Origins,1  the  Master 
workman  is  said  to  have  separated  the  waters  and  placed  the 
firmament  in  between  them.  The  Hebrew  philosophers  declare 
that  the  crystalline  sphere  which  Ezekiel2  called  the  great  crystal 
and  upon  which  he  saw  God  seated,  as  he  wrote,  is  as  far  be- 
yond the  farthermost  heaven  as  our  ocean  is  far  from  that  heav- 
en, and  that  this  orb  is  motionless  and  therefore  is  called  God's 
throne.  For  "seat"  implies  quiet  and  tranquility  which  could 
be  proper  for  none  other  than  the  one  immobile  and  immu- 
table God.  This  is  far  more  probable  and  likely  than  Aristotle's 
absurd  idea,  unworthy  the  name  of  a  philosopher,  by  which  he 
placed  the  eternal  God  in  a  moving  heaven  as  if  He  were  its 
source  of  motion  and  in  such  fashion  that  He  was  constrained 
of  necessity  to  move  it.  We  have  already  refuted  this  idea.  It 
has  also  been  shown  that  these  celestial  waters  full  of  fertility 
and  productiveness  sometimes  are  spread  abroad  more  widely 
and  sometimes  less  so,  as  though  obviously  restrained,  whence 
the  heavens  are  said  to  be  closed3  and  roofed4,  with  clouds  or  that 
floods  burst  forth  out  of  the  heaven  to  inundate  the  earth.  Final- 
ly we  read  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  that  the  eternal  God  is  seated 
upon  the  flood. 

THEO.    Why  then  are  not  eleven  spheres  counted? 

MYST.  Because  the  crystalline  sphere  is  said  to  have  been 
separated  from  the  inferior  waters  by  the  firmament,  and  it 
therefore  cannot  be -called  a  heaven.  Furthermore  motion  is 
proper  to  all  the  heavens,  but  the  crystalline  one  is  stationary. 
That  is  why  Rabi  Akiba  called5  it  a  marble  counterpart  of  the 
universe.  This  also  is  signified  in  the  construction  of  the  altar 
which  was  covered  with  a  pavilion  in  addition  to  its  ten  curtains 
for,  as  it  is  stated  elsewhere,6  God  covers  the  heavens  with 
clouds,  and  the  Scriptures  often  make  mention  of  the  waters  be- 
yond the  heavens.7  There  are  those,  however,  who  teach  that 
the  Hebrew  word  Scamajim  may  be  applied  only  to  a  dual  num- 

*Gen. :   1.  2Chap.   1   and   10.      Exod.:   24. 

'I  Kings :  8.    Deut. :  28.  4Psalm  146. 

'According  to  Maymon:  Perplexorum,  III.        "Psalm  147. 
7Psalm  148.    Gen.  1  and  7. 

120 


her,  so  that  they  take  it  to  mean  the  crystalline  sphere  and  the 
starry  one.  But  I  think  those  words  in  Solomon's  speech1  "the 
heaven  of  heaven,  and  the  heavens  of  the  heavens"  refer  in  the 
singular  to  the  crystalline  sphere,  in  the  plural  to  the  ten  lesser 
spheres. 

THEO.  It  does  not  seem  so  marvelous  to  me  that  an  aqueous 
or  crystalline  sphere  exists  beyond  the  ten  spheres,  as  that  it  is 
as  far  beyond  the  furthermost  sphere  as  the  ocean  is  far  this  side 
of  it,  that  is,  as  astrologists  teach,  1040  terrestrial  diameters. 

MYST.  It  is  written  most  plainly  that  the  firmament  holds  the 
middle  place  between  the  two  waters.  Therefore  God  is  called2 
in  Hebrew  Helion,  the  Sun,  that  is,  the  Most  High,  and  under 
His  feet  the  heaven  is  spread  like  a  crystal,3  although  He  is 
neither  excluded  nor  included  in  any  part  of  the  universe,  it  is 
however  consistent  with  His  Majesty  to  be  above  all  the  spheres 
and  to  fill  heaven  and  earth  with  His  infinite  power  as  Isaiah4 
indicated  when  he  writes :  "His  train  filled  the  temple ;"  it  is  the 
purest  and  simplest  act,  the  others  are  brought  about  by  forces 
and  powers.  He  alone  is  incorporeal,  others  are  corporeal  or 
joined  to  bodies.  He  alone  is  eternal,  others  according  to  their 
nature  are  transitory  and  fleeting  unless  they  are  strengthened 
by  the  Creator's  might;  wherefore  the  Chaldean  interpreter  is 
seen  everywhere  to  have  used  the  words,  Majesty,  Glory  or 
Power  in  place  of  the  presence  of  God. 

THEO.  Nevertheless  so  vast  and  limitless  a  space  must  be 
filled  with  air  or  fire,  since  there  are  no  spheres  there,  nor  will 
nature  suffer  any  vacuum. 

MYST.  If  then  the  firmament  occupies  the  middle  position  be- 
tween the  two  waters,  then  by  this  hypothesis  you  must  admit 
that  the  space  beyond  the  spheres  is  empty  of  elemental  and 
celestial  bodies ;  otherwise  you  would  have  to  admit  that  the  last 
sphere  extends  on  even  to  the  crystalline  orb,  which  can  in  no 
way  be  reconciled  with  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  still  less  with 
reason  because  of  the  incredible  velocity  of  this  sphere.  There- 
fore it  is  far  more  probable  that  this  space  is  filled  with  angels. 

THEO.  Is  there  some  medium  between  God  and  the  angels 
which  shares  in  the  nature  of  both  ? 

MYST.  What  is  incorporeal  and  indivisible  cannot  communi- 
cate any  part  of  its  essence  to  another ;  for  if  a  creature  had  any 
part  of  the  divine  essence,  it  would  be  all  God,  since  God  neither 
has  parts  nor  can  be  divided,  therefore  He  must  be  separated 
from  all  corporeal  contact  or  intermixture. 


'Also  in  Psalm  67  and  123. 

2Psalm  92.      "Exod.  24.     Ezek.  1,  10.        4Isa.  6. 


121 


Section  12:    On  guardian  angels. 

THEO.    What  then  in  corporeal  nature  is  closest  to  God  ? 

MYST.  The  two  Seraphim,  who  stand  near  the  eternal  Cre- 
ator,1 and  who  are  said  to  have  six  wings,  two  wherewith  to  fly, 
the  others  to  cover  head  and  feet.  By  this  is  signified  the  ad- 
mirable swiftness  with  which  they  fulfill  His  commands,  yet  head 
and  feet  are  veiled  for  so  the  purpose  of  their  origin  and  its 
earliest  beginning  are  not  known  to  us.  Also  they  have  eyes  scat- 
tered in  all  parts  of  their  bodies  to  indicate  that  nothing  is  hid- 
den from  them.  And  they  also  pour  oil  for  lighting  through  a 
funnel  into  the  seven-branched  candlestick;  that  is,  strength  and 
power  are  poured  forth  by  the  Creator  to  the  seven  planets,  so 
that  we  should  turn  from  created  things  to  the  worship  and 
love  of  the  Creator. 

THEO.  Since  nothing  is  more  fitting  for  the  Divine  goodness 
than  to  create,  to  generate,  and  to  pile  up  good  things  for  all, 
whence  comes  the  destruction  of  the  world  and  the  ruin  of  all 
created  things? 

MYST.  It  is  true  Plato  and  Aristotle  attributed  the  cause  of 
all  ills  to  the  imperfection  of  matter  in  which  they  thought  was 
some  kakopoion*  but  that  is  absurd  since  it  is  distinctly  writ- 
ten: All  that  God  had  made  was  good,  or  as  the  Hebrews  ex- 
press it,  beautiful, — so  evil  is  nothing  else  than  the  absence2  or 
privation  of  good. 

THEO.  Can  not  wicked  angels  be  defined  without  privation 
since  they  are  corporeal  essences? 

MYST.  Anything  that  exists  is  said  to  be  good  and  to  be  a 
participant  by  its  existence  in  the  divine  goodness ;  and  even 
as  in  a  well  regulated  Republic,  executioners,  lictors,  and 
corpse-bearers  are  no  less  necessary  than  magistrates,  judges 
and  overseers;  so  in  the  Republic  of  this  world,  for  the  gen- 
eration, management  and  guardianship  of  things  God  has  gath- 
ered together  angels  as  leaders  and  directors  for  all  the  celes- 
tial places,  for  the  elements,  for  living  beings,  for  plants,  for 
minerals,  for  states,  provinces,  families  and  individuals.  And  not 
only  has  He  done  this,  but  He  has  also  assigned  His  servants, 
lictors,  avengers  and  others  to  places  where  they  may  do  noth- 
ing without  His  order,  nor  inflict  any  punishment  upon  wicked 
men  unless  the  affair  has  been  known  fully  and  so  decided. 


'Isa.  6.     Ezek.  1  and  10.    Zach.  4.     Exod.  24,  25. 
*Maleficium  quidam,  *.  e.,  some  evil-power.    Job  5. 
2Augustine  against  Faustus  wrote  that  vanity  is  not  produced  from  the 
dust,  nor  evil  from  the  earth. 


122 


Thus  God  is  said1  to  have  made  Leviathan,  which  is  the  out- 
flow of  Himself,  that  is,  the  natural  rise  and  fall  of  all  things. 
"I  have  created  a  killer,"2  He  said,  "to  destroy,"  and  so  also 
Behemoth,  and  the  demons  cleaving  to  him,  which  are  often 
called  ravens,  eagles  and  lions,  and  which  are  said  to  beg  their 
food  of  God,  that  is,  the  taking  of  vengeance  upon  the  wicked 
whose  punishment  and  death  they  feed  upon  as  upon  ordinary 
fare.  From  these,  therefore,  or  rather  from  ourselves,  come 
death,  pestilence,  famine,  war  and  those  things  we  call  ills,  and 
not  from  the  Author  of  all  good  things  except  by  accident. 
For  so  God  says  of  Himself  :3  "I  am  the  God  making  good  and 
creating  evil,  making  light  and  creating  darkness."  For  when 
He  withdraws  His  spirit,  evil  follows  the  good;  when  He 
takes  the  light  away,  darkness  is  created;  as  when  one  removes 
the  pillars  of  a  building,  the  ruin  of  a  house  follows.  If  He 
takes  the  vital  spark  away,  death  follows;  nor  can  He  be  said 
to  do  evil*  to  anyone  in  taking  back  what  is  His  own. 

THEO.  When  the  Legislator  asked  Him  to  disclose  His  face 
to  his  gaze,  why  did  the  Architect  of  the  universe  and  the 
Author  of  all  things  reply :  "My  face  is  to  be  seen  by  no  mortal 
man,  but  only  my  back?" 

MYST.  This  fine  allegory  signifies  that  God  cannot  be  known 
from  superior  or  antecedent  causes  but  from  behind  His  back, 
that  is,  from  results,  for  a  little  later  He  adds,  "I  will  cover 
thine  eyes  with  My  hand."  Thus  the  hand  signifies  those  works 
which  He  has  placed  before  anyone's  eyes,  and  it  indicates  that 
He  places  man  not  in  an  obscure  corner  but  in  the  center  of  the 
universe  so  that  He  might  better  and  more  easily  than  in  heaven 
contemplate  the  universe  and  all  His  works  through  the  sight  of 
which,  as  through  spectacles,  the  Sun,  that  is,  God  Himself,  may 
be  disclosed.  And  therefore  we  undertook  this  disputation  con- 
cerning nature  and  natural  things,  so  that  even  if  they  are  but 
slightly  explained,  nevertheless  we  may  attain  from  this  dis- 
quisition an  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  Creator  and  may  break 
forth  in  His  praises  with  all  our  might,  that  at  length  by  degrees 
we  may  be  borne  on  high  and  be  blessed  by  the  Divine  reward ; 
for  this  is  indeed  the  supreme  and  final  good  for  a  man. 

Here  endeth  the  Drama  of  Nature  which 
Jean  Bodin  wrote  while  all  France  was 
aflame  with  civil  war. 

FINIS 


'Job  41  and  49.     Isa.  54.     Ezek.  31.        2Isa.  54.        3Isa.  45.        "Job  34. 

123 


APPENDIX     D. 
A  TRANSLATION  OF  A  LETTER  BY  THOMAS  FEYENS 

ON   THE   QUESTION:     Is   IT   TRUE   THAT  THE   HEAVENS  ARE 
MOVED  AND  THE  EARTH  Is  AT  REST?     (FEBRUARY,  1619) 

(Thoma  Fieni  Epistolica  Qucestio:  An  verum  sit,  coelum 
moveri  et  terram  quiescere?  Londini,  1655.) 

To  the  eminent  and  noble  scholars,  Tobias  Matthias  and 
George  Gays: 

IT  is  proved  that  the  heavens  are  moved  and  the  earth  is  sta- 
tionary: First;  by  authority;  for  besides  the  fact  that  this  is 
asserted  by  Aristotle  and  Ptolemy  whom  wellnigh  all  Philos- 
ophers and  Mathematicians  have  followed  by  unanimous  con- 
sent, except  for  Copernicus,  Bernardus  Patricius1  and  a  very  few 
others,  the  Holy  Scriptures  plainly  attest  it  in  at  least  two  places 
which  I  have  seen.  In  Joshua,2  are  the  words :  Steteruntque 
sol  et  luna  donee  ulcisceretur  gens  de  inimicis  suis.  And  a  little 
further  on:  Stetit  itaque  sol  in  medio  coeli,  et  non  festinavit 
occumbere  spatio  unius  diei,  et  non  fuit  antea  et  postea  tarn 
longa  dies.  The  Scriptures  obviously  refer  by  these  words  to 
the  motion  of  the  primum  mobile  by  which  the  sun  and  the 
moon  are  borne  along  in  their  diurnal  course  and  the  day  is  de- 
fined; and  it  indicates  that  the  heavens  are  moved  as  well  as 
the  primum  mobile.  Then  Ecclesiastes,  chapter  I,3  reads:  Gen- 
eratio  praeterit,  et  generatio  advenit,  terra  autem  semper  stat, 
oritur  sol  et  occidit,  et  ad  locum  suum  revertitur. 

Secondly,  it  is  proved  by  reason.  All  the  heavens  and  stars 
were  made  in  man's  behalf  and,  with  other  terrestrial  bodies, 
are  the  servants  of  man  to  warm,  light,  and  vivify  him. 

This  they  could  not  do  unless  in  moving  they  applied  them- 
selves by  turns  to  different  parts  of  the  world.  And  it  is  more 
likely  that  they  would  apply  themselves  by  their  own  move- 
ment to  man  and  the  place  in  which  man  lives,  than  that  man 
should  come  to  them  by  the  movement  of  his  own  seat  or  hab- 
itation. For  they  are  the  servants  of  man;  man  is  not  their 

Teyens  probably  refers  here  to  Francesco  Patrizzi,  who  was  an  enemy 
of  the  peripatetics  and  a  great  supporter  of  platonism.  He  died  in  1597 
at  Rome,  where  Clement  VIII  had  conferred  on  him  the  chair  of  philos- 
ophy. 

"Joshua  X:    13-14.  'Ecclesiastes   I:   4. 

124 


servant;  therefore  it  is  more  probable  that  the  heavens  are 
moved  and  the  earth  is  at  rest  than  that  the  reverse  is  true. 

Thirdly;  no  probable  argument  can  be  thought  out  from  phi- 
losophy to  prove  that  the  earth  is  moved  and  the  heavens  are  at 
rest.  Nor  can  it  be  done  by  mathematics.  By  saying  that  the 
heavens  are  moved  and  the  earth  is  at  rest,  all  phenomena  of 
the  heavenly  bodies  can  be  solved.  Just  as  in  the  same  way  in 
optics  all  can  be  solved  by  saying  either  that  sight  comes  from 
the  thing  to  the  eye,  or  that  rays  go  from  the  eye  to  the  thing 
seen;  so  is  it  in  astronomy.  Therefore  one  ought  rather  to 
abide  in  the  ancient  and  general  opinion  than  in  one  received 
recently  without  justification. 

Fourthly;  the  earth  is  the  center  of  the  universe;  all  the 
heavenly  bodies  are  observed  to  be  moved  around  it;  therefore 
it  itself  ought  to  be  motionless,  for  anything  that  moves,  it 
seems,  should  move  around  or  above  something  that  is  motion- 
less. 

Fifthly;  if  the  earth  is  moved  in  a  circle,  either  it  moves  that 
way  naturally  or  by  force,  either  by  its  own  nature  or  by  the 
nature  of  another.  It  is  not  by  its  own  nature,  for  straight 
motion  from  above  downward  is  natural  to  it;  therefore  circu- 
lar motion  could  not  be  natural  to  it.  Further,  the  earth  is  a 
simple  body;  and  a  simple  body  can  not  have  two  natural  mo- 
tions of  distinct  kinds  or  classes.  Nor  is  it  moved  by  another 
body;  for  by  what  is  it  moved?  One  has  to  say  it  is  moved 
either  by  the  sun  or  by  some  other  celestial  body ;  and  this  cannot 
be  said,  since  either  the  sun  or  that  body  is  said  to  be  at  rest  or  in 
motion.  If  it  is  said  to  be  at  rest,  then  it  cannot  impart  movement 
to  another.  If  it  is  said  to  be  in  motion,  then  it  can  not  move  the 
earth,  because  it  ought  to  move  either  by  a  motion  similar  to  its 
own  or  the  opposite  of  it.  It  is  not  similar,  since  thus  it  would 
be  observed  to  move  neutrally  as  when  two  boats  moving  in 
the  same  direction,  appear  not  to  move  but  to  be  at  rest.  It  is 
not  the  opposite  motion,  since  nothing  could  give  motion  con- 
trary to  its  own.  And  because  Galileo  seems  to  say,  in  so  far 
as  I  have  learned  from  your  lordships,  that  the  earth  was 
moved  by  the  sun ;  I  prove  anyway  that  this  is  not  true  since 
the  movement  of  the  sun  and  of  the  earth  ought  to  be 
from  contrary  and,  distinct  poles.  The  sun,  however,  can  not 
be  the  cause  of  the  other's  movement  because  it  is  moved  above 
different  poles.  Lastly,  the  earth  follows  the  motion  of  no 
other  celestial  body;  since  if  it  is  moved,  it  moves  in  24  hours, 
and  all  the  other  celestial  bodies  require  the  space  of  many 
days,  months  and  years.  Ergo.  Finally,  if  the  earth  is  moved 
by  another,  its  motion  would  be  violent;  but  this  is  absurd,  for 
no  violence  can  be  regular  and  perpetual. 

"5 


Sixthly ;  even  so  it  is  declared  that  the  earth  is  moved.  Nev- 
ertheless, it  must  be  admitted  to  this  that  either  the  planets 
themselves  or  their  spheres  are  moved,  for  in  no  other  way  can 
the  diversities  of  aspects  among  themselves  be  solved;  nor  can 
a  reason  be  given  why  the  sun  does  not  leave  the  Ecliptic  and 
the  moon  does;  and  how  a  planet  can  be  stationary  or  retro- 
grade, high  or  low, — and  many  other  phenomena.  For  this 
reason  those  who  said  the  earth  moved,  as  Bernardus  Patricius 
and  the  others  said,  claimed  that  the  primum  mobile,  forsooth, 
was  stationary  and  that  the  earth  was  moved  in  its  place;  yet 
they  could  not  in  the  least  deny  that  the  planets  themselves  were 
moved,  but  admitted  it.  That  is  the  reason  why  both  ancient 
and  modern  mathematicians,  aside  from  the  motion  of  the 
primum  mobile,  were  forced  to  admit  and  consider  the  peculiar 
movements  of  the  planets  themselves.  If  therefore  it  must  be 
acknowledged,  and  it  is  certain,  that  the  stars  and  the  celestial 
bodies  are  moved;  then  it  is  more  probable  that  all  movement 
perceived  in  the  universe  belongs  rather  to  the  heavenly  bodies 
than  to  the  earth.  For  if  movement  were  ascribed  to  all  the  rest, 
why  for  that  same  reason  is  not  diurnal  rotation  ascribed  rather 
to  the  primum  mobile  than  to  the  earth,  particularly  when  our 
senses  seem  to  decide  thus?  Although  one  may  well  be  mis- 
taken, sometimes,  concerning  other  similar  movements;  yet  it 
is  not  probable  that  all  ages  could  be  at  fault,  or  should  be, 
about  the  movements  of  its  most  important  objects,  of  course 
the  celestial  luminaries. 

Seventhly;  it  is  proved  by  experience.  For  if  the  earth  is 
moved,  then  an  arrow  shot  straight  up  on  high  could  never  fall 
back  to  the  place  whence  it  was  shot,  but  should  fall  some- 
where many  miles  away.  But  this  is  not  so.  Ergo. 

This  can  be  answered  and  is  so  customarily  in  this  way:  this 
does  not  follow  because  the  air  is  swept  along  with  the  earth, 
and  so,  since  the  air  which  carries  the  arrow  is  turning  in  the 
same  way  with  the  earth,  the  arrow  also  is  borne  along  equally 
with  it,  and  thus  returns  to  the  same  spot.  This  in  truth  is  a 
pure  evasion  and  a  worthless  answer  for  many  reasons. 

It  is  falsely  observed  that  the  air  is  moved  and  by  the  same 
motion  as  the  earth.  For  what  should  move  the  earth?  Truly, 
if  the  air  is  moved  by  the  same  motion  as  the  earth,  either  it 
ought  to  be  moved  by  the  earth  itself,  or  by  that  other 
which  moves  the  earth,  or  by  itself.  It  is  not  moved  by  itself ; 
since  it  has  another  motion,  the  straight  one  of  course  natural 
to  itself,  and  also  since  it  has  a  nature,  an  essence  and  qualities 
all  different  from  the  nature  and  the  essence  of  the  earth ;  there- 
fore it  could  not  by  its  own  nature  have  the  same  motion  as  that 
other,  but  of  necessity  ought  to  have  a  different  one. 

126 


Nor  is  it  moved  by  any  other  that  may  move  the  earth ;  as  that 
which  moves  the  earth  could  not  at  the  same  time  and  with 
like  motion  move  the  air.  For  since  the  air  is  different  from 
the  earth  in  essence,  in  both  active  and  passive  qualities,  and  in 
kind  of  substance,  it  can  not  receive  the  impelling  force  of  the 
acting  body,  or  that  force  applied  in  the  same  way  as  the  earth, 
and  so  could  not  be  moved  in  the  same  way.  The  virtues  [of 
bodies]  acting  and  of  moving  diversely  are  received  by  the 
recipients  according  to  the  diversity  of  their  dispositions.  Also 
it  can  not  be  moved  by  the  earth ;  since  if  it  were  moved  by  the 
earth,  it  must  be  said  to  be  moved  by  force,  but  such  motion 
appears  to  be  impossible.  Ergo.  The  minor  premise  is 
proved:  for  if  air  is  thus  moved  by  the  earth  by  force  the  air 
ought  to  be  moved  more  rapidly  than  the  earth,  because  air  is 
larger  [than  the  earth]. 

For  what  is  outside  is  larger  than  what  is  inside.  When, 
however,  what  is  larger  and  what  is  outside  is  driven  around 
equally  rapidly  with  what  is  less\  and  what  is  inside,  then  the 
former  is  moved  much  more  rapidly.  Thus  it  is  true  that  the 
sphere  of  Saturn  in  its  daily  course  is  moved  far  faster  than  the 
sphere  of  the  moon.  But  it  is  impossible  that  the  one  driven 
should  move  more  rapidly  than  the  one  driving;  therefore  the 
air  is  not  moved  by  the  earth's  violence.  Thus  would  it  be  if 
the  air  were  moved  with  the  earth,  or  by  itself,  or  by  force. 
Thus  far,  then,  the  force  of  the  original  argument  remains; 
since  of  its  own  motion,  indeed,  it  could  not  be  in  every  way 
conformable  to  the  motion  of  the  earth  as  I  have  shown;  and 
this  because  the  air  differs  from  the  earth  in  consistency  of 
substance,  in  qualities  and  in  essence.  But  the  air  ought  at  all 
events  to  move  more  sluggishly  than  the  earth.  It  follows 
from  this  that  an  arrow  shot  straight  up  could  not  return  to  its 
starting  point ;  for  the  earth,  moving  like  the  air,  on  account  of 
the  other's  slower  rate  leaves  it  behind,  and  the  arrow  also 
which  is  carried  away  from  it. 

Besides,  if  the  air  does  not  move  so  rapidly  as  the  earth,  a 
man  living  in  a  very  high  tower,  however  quiet  the  air,  ought 
then  always  to  feel  the  strongest  wind  and  the  greatest  disturb- 
ance of  the  air. 

Since  mountains  and  towers  are  moved  with  the  earth,  and 
the  air  would  not  be  accompanying  them  at  an  equal  speed,  it 
would  necessarily  follow  that  they  would  precede  the  air  by 
cleaving  and  cutting  and  ploughing  through  it  which  ought  to 
make  a  great  wind  perceptible. 

Eighthly ;  if  a  person  stood  in  some  very  high  tower  or  other 
high  place  and  aimed  from  that  tower  at  some  spot  of  earth  per- 
pendicularly below  his  eye,  and  allowed  a  very  heavy  stone  to 

127 


fall  following  that  perpendicular  line,  it  is  absolutely  certain  that 
that  stone  would  land  upon  the  spot  aimed  at  perpendicularly 
underneath.  But  if  the  earth  is  moved,  it  would  be  impossible  for 
the  stone  to  strike  that  spot. 

This  I  prove  first:  because  either  the  air  moves  at  an  un- 
equal rate  with  the  earth;  or  it  moves  equally  rapidly.  If  not 
equally,  then  it  is  certain  the  stone  could  not  land  at  that  spot, 
since  the  earth's  movement  would  outstrip  the  stone  borne  by 
the  air.  If  equally  rapidly,  then  again  the  stone  could  not  land 
at  that  spot,  since  although  the  air  was  moving  in  itself  at  an 
equal  speed,  yet  on  that  account  it  could  not  carry  the  stone 
thus  rapidly  with  itself  and  carrying  it  downward  falling  by 
its  own  weight,  for  the  stone  tending  by  gravity  towards  the 
center  resists  the  carrying  of  the  air. 

You  will  say:  if  the  earth  is  moved  in  a  circle,  so  are  all  its 
parts;  wherefore  that  stone  in  falling  not  only  moves  in  a  circle 
by  the  carrying  of  the  air,  but  also  in  a  circle  because  of  its 
own  nature  as  being  part  of  the  earth  and  having  the  same 
motion  with  it. 

Verily  this  answer  is  worthless.  For  although  the  stone  is 
turned  in  a  circle  by  its  own  nature  like  the  earth,  yet  its  own 
natural  gravity  impeded  it  so  that  it  is  borne  along  that  much 
the  less  swiftly,  unlike  the  air  or  the  earth,  both  of  which  are 
in  their  natural  places  and  which  in  consequence  have  no  grav- 
ity as  a  stone  falling  from  on  high  has. 

Lastly;  because  although  the  stone  is  moved  in  the  world 
by  its  own  nature  like  the  whole  earth,  yet  it  is  not  borne  along 
as  swiftly  as  the  whole  earth.  For  as  one  stone  by  its  own 
weight  falls  from  the  heaven  following  its  own  direct  motion 
straight  to  the  center  just  as  a  part  of  the  earth,  so  also  the 
whole  earth  itself  would  fall;  and  yet  it  would  not  fall  so 
swiftly  as  the  whole  earth,  for  although  the  stone  would  be 
borne  along  in  its  sphere  like  the  whole  earth  just  as  a  part  of 
it,  yet  it  would  not  be  borne  along  as  swiftly  as  the  whole  earth ; 
and  so,  in  whatever  way  it  is  said,  the  motion  of  the  earth  ought 
always  to  outstrip  the  stone  and  leave  it  a  long  distance  behind. 
Thus  a  stone  could  never  fall  at  the  point  selected  or  a  point 
perpendicularly  beneath  it.  This  is  false.  Ergo. 

Ninthly:  If  the  earth  is  moved  in  a  circular  orbit,  it  ought  to 
pass  from  the  west  through  the  meridian  to  the  east;  conse- 
quently the  air  ought  to  move  by  the  same  path.  But  if  this 
were  so,  then  if  an  archer  shot  toward  the  east,  his  arrow  ought 
to  fly  much  farther  than  if  he  shot  toward  the  west.  For  when 
he  shot  toward  the  east,  the  arrow  would  fly  with  the  natural 
movement  of  the  air  and  would  have  that  supporting  it.  But 
when  he  shot  toward  the  west,  he  would  have  the  motion  of  the 

128 


air  against  him  and  then  the  arrow  would  struggle  against  it. 
But  it  is  certain  the  arrow  ought  to  go  much  farther  and  faster 
when  the  movement  of  the  air  is  favorable  to  it  then  when 
against  it,  as  is  obvious  in  darts  sent  out  with  a  favoring  wind. 
Ergo. 

Similarly  not  a  few  other  arguments  can  be  worked  out,  but 
there  are  none  as  valuable  for  proof  as  the  foregoing  ones. 
Though  these  were  written  by  me  with  a  flying  pen  far  from 
books  and  sick  in  bed  with  a  broken  leg,  yet  they  seem  to  me  to 
have  so  much  value  that  I  do  not  see  any  way  by  which  they 
could  rightly  be  refuted.  These  I  have  written  for  your  gracious 
lordships  in  gratitude  for  your  goodwill  on  the  occasion  of  our 
conversation  at  your  dinner  four  days  ago;  and  I  ask  for  them 
that  you  meditate  on  them  justly  and  well. 


129 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 
(of  references  cited.) 

I 

GENERAL  WORKS. 

Addis  and  Arnold :  Catholic  Dictionary,  2nd  edit.  London,  1884. 

Bailly:  Histoire  de  I' Astronomic  Moderne  depuis  la  Fondation 
de  I'Ecole  d'Alexandrie,  jusqu'  a  I'Epoque  de  1730.  3  vol. 
Paris,  1785. 

Berry,  Arthur :  Short  History  of  Astronomy.     New  York,  1912. 

Cajori,  Florian :  The  Teaching  and  History  of  Mathematics  in 
the  United  States.  Washington,  1890.  (Bureau  of  Educa- 
tion, No.  3.) 

Delambre,  J.  B.  J. :  Histoire  de  I' Astronomic  Ancicnne.  Paris, 
1817. 

:  Histoire  de  I' Astronomic  du  Moyen  Age.  Paris, 

1819. 

:  Histoire  de  l}  Astronomic  Moderne.     Paris,  1821. 


De  Morgan,  Augustus :  A  Book  of  Paradoxes.    2  vol.  2nd  edit. 

ed.  by  David  Eugene  Smith.    Chicago,  1915. 
Di  Bruno,  Joseph  Faa:  Catholic  Belief,  or  a   short  and   simple 

exposition  of  Catholic  Doctrine.      Author's    American    edit. 

375th  thousand.    New  York,  [1912.] 
Jacoby,  Harold :  Astronomy,  a  Popular  Handbook.     New  York, 

1913. 
Janssen,  J. :  History  of  the  German  People  at  the  Close  of  the 

Middle  Ages.     Trans,  by  Mitchell  and  Christie.     2  vol.     St. 

Louis,  no  date. 

Lecky,  Wm.  E.  Hartpole:  History  of  England  in  the  18th  Cen- 
tury.   8  vol.    New  edit.    New  York,  1892. 
Libri,  C. :  Histoire  des  Sciences  Mathematiques  en  Italie  depuis 

la  Renaissance  des  Lettres.     2me  edit.     4  vol.     Halle,  1865. 
Milman,  Henry  H. :  History  of  Latin  Christianity.     8  vol.  in  4. 

New  York,  1899. 

130 


Owen,  John :  The  Skeptics  of  the  Italian  Renaissance.  2nd  edit. 
Ntew  York,  1893. 

Peignot,  G. :  Dictionnaire  Critique  Litteraire  et  Bibliographique 
des  Principaux  Livres  Condamnes  au  Feu,  Supprimes  on 
Censures.  2  vol.  Paris,  1806. 

Putnam,  George  Haven:  The  Censorship  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  2  vol.  New  York,  1907. 

Rashdall,  Hastings :  Universities  of  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages. 
2  vol.  Oxford,  1895. 

Smith,  David  Eugene:  Kara  Arithmetic^.     Boston,  1908. 

Snyder,  Carl:  The  World  Machine:  The  Cosmic  Mechanism. 
London,  1907. 

Stephen,  Leslie:  History  of  English  Thought  in  the  18th  Cen- 
tury. 2  vol.  3rd  edit.  New  York,  1902. 

Taylor,  Henry  Osborne:  The  Medieval  Mind.  2nd  edit.  Lon- 
don, 1914. 

Walsh,  J.  J. :  Catholic  Churchmen  in  Science.  2nd  series.  Phil- 
adelphia, 1909. 

:  The  Popes  and  Science.  Knights  of  Columbus  edit. 

New  York,  1911. 

Wegg-Prosser,  F.  R. :  Galileo  and  his  Judges.     London.     1889. 

Whewell,  William:  History  of  the  Inductive  Sciences  from  the 
Earliest  to  the  Present  Time.  New  edit,  revised.  3  vol.  Lon- 
don, 1847. 

White,  Andrew  D. :  History  of  the  Welfare  of  Science  with 
Theology  in  Christendom.  2  vol.  New  York,  1898. 

Windle,  B.  C.  A. :  A  Century  of  Scientific  Thought  and  Other 
Essays.  London,  1915. 

Young,  Charles :  Manual  of  Astronomy.     Boston,  1902. 

II 
SPECIAL  WORKS. 

Allaben,  Frank:  John  Watts  de  Peyster.      2  vol.      New  York, 

1908. 

:  see  De  Peyster. 

Anon :   Galileo — The    Roman    Inquisition:  A    Defence    of  the 

Catholic    Church  from   the    Charge    of    having    persecuted 


Galileo  for  his  philosophical  opinions.  Reprinted  from  the 
Dublin  Review  with  an  introduction  by  an  "American  Cath- 
olic." Cincinnati,  1844. 

Baudrillart,  Henri :  Jean  Bodin  et  son  Temps:  Tableau  des 
Theories  Politiques  et  des  Idees  Economiques  au  16me  siecle. 
Paris,  1853. 

Bartholmess,  Christian:  Jordano  Bruno.     2  vol.     Paris,    1846. 

Berti,  Domenico:  Vita  di  Giordano  Bruno  da  Nola.  Turin, 
1868. 

Bertrand,  M.  J. :  Copernic  et  ses  Travaux  (Fev.  1864)  in 
Memoires  sur  les  Mathematiques. 

:  Le  Proces  de  Galilee  (Oct.  1877),  in  Eloges  Acad- 

emiques,  nouvelle  serie.     Paris,  1902. 

:  Notice  sur  la  Vie  at  les  Travaux  de  Kepler.     (Dec. 


1863)    in   Memoires   de    V Academic    des   Sciences,    XXXV. 

Paris,   1866. 
Betten,  Francis  S.   (S.  J.)  :  The   Roman   Index  of   Forbidden 

Books   briefly   explained  for   Catholic  Booklovers   and  Stu- 
dents.   4th  edit,  enlarged.     St.  Louis,  1915. 
Beyersdorf,  Robert:  Giordano  Bruno  und  Shakespeare.     Leip- 

sic,  1889. 
Blavatsky,  H.  P.:  The  Secret  Doctrine.     2  vol.     Point  Loma, 

Cal.,  1909. 
Brewster,  David:  Martyrs  of  Science:  Lives  of  Galileo,  Tycho 

Brake  and  Kepler.    London,  1874. 
Bridges,  J.  H. :  Tycho  Brake,  in  Contemp.  Rev.:  81:   196-213 

(Feb.  1902). 
Brinton,  Daniel  G.  and  Davidson,  Thomas :    Giordano    Bruno, 

Philosopher  and  Martyr.     Philadelphia,  1890. 
Burckhardt,  F. :  Zur  Erinnerungaan  Tycho  Brake.     Vortrag  23 

Oct.  1901,  in  den  Naturforschen  der  Gesellschaft  in  Basel. 

Vol.  13,  Basel,  1901. 

Chasles,    Philarete:       Galilei,    sa   vie,    son   proces   et   ses   con- 
temp  or  ains.    Paris,  1862. 
Con  way,  Bertrand  L.  (C.  S.  P.)  :  The  Condemnation  of  Galileo. 

Pamphlet.     New  York,  1913. 
Cumont,  Franz :  Astrology  and  Religion  among  the  Greeks  and 

Romans.    New  York,  1912. 

132 


Davidson :  see  Brinton. 

De  1'Epinois,  Henri:  Galilee,  son  proces,  sa  condemnation,  d'- 
apres  des  documents  inedits.  in  Revue  des  Quest.  Hist.,  Ill, 
68-145.  Paris,  1867. 

Desdouits,  Theophile:  La  Legende  Tragique  de  Jordano  Bruno. 
Paris,  1885. 

Dreyer,  J.  L.  E. :  Tycho  Brake:  A  Picture  of  Scientific  Life  and 
Work  in  the  16th  Century.  Edinburgh,  1890. 

Eastman,  Charles  R. :  Earliest  Predecessors  of  Copernicus,  in 
Pop.  Sci.  LVIII:  323-327  (April,  1906). 

Fahie,  J.  J. :  Galileo,  his  Life  and  Work.     London,  1903. 

Flammarion,  Camille:  Vie  de  Copernic  et  Histoire  de  la  De- 
couverte  du  Systeme  du  Monde.  Paris,  1872. 

Frisch:  Vita  Joannis  Kepler  in  Opera  Onmia  Kepleri.  VIII, 
668-1028. 

Frith,  I. :  Life  of  Giordano  Bruno  the  Nolan.     London,  1887. 

Graux,  Charles:  L'Universite  de  Salamanque  in  Notices  Biblio- 
graphiques.  Paris,  1884. 

Haldane,  Elizabeth  S. :  Descartes,  his  Life  and  Times.  London, 
1905. 

Heath,  Thomas  L. :  Aristarchus  of  Samos,  the  Ancient  Coper- 
nicus. Oxford,  1913. 

Holden,  E.  S. :  Copernicus  in  Pop.  Sci.  LXV:  109-131  (June, 
1904.) 

La  Fuente,  (Vicente  de)  :  Historia  de  las  Universidades.  .  .  . 
de  Espana.  2  vol.  1884. 

Martin,  Henri  T. :  Galilee,  les  Droits  de  la  Science  et  la  Methode 
des  Sciences  Physiques.  Paris,  1868. 

Mclntyre,  J.  Lewis :  Giordano  Bruno.    London,  1903. 

Monchamp,  Georges :  Galilee  et  la  Belgique,  Essai  Historique 
sur  les  Vicissitudes  du  Systeme  du  Copernic  en  Belgique. 
Saint-Trond,  1892. 

Parchappe,  Max:  Galilee,  sa  Vie,  ses  Decouvertes  et  ses  Tra- 
vail x.  Paris,  1866. 

Prowe,  Leopold :  Nicolaus  Coppernicus.  3  vol. :  I  and  II,  Bio- 
graphy, 1883 ;  III,  Sources,  1884.  Berlin. 

R*** :  Beitrage  zur  Beantwortung  der  Frage  nach  der  Nation- 
alit'dt  des  Nicolaus  Copernicus..  Pamphlet.  Breslau,  1872. 

133 


Reusch,  F.  H. :  Der  Process  Galilei's  und  Die  Jesuiten.     Bonn, 

1879. 
Robinson,  James  Howard:  The  Great  Comet  of  1680:  A  Study 

in  the  History  of  Rationalism.     Northfield,  Minn.,  1916. 
Schiaparelli,  G.  V. :  Die  Vorlaufer  des    Copernicus    im  Alter- 

thum,  trans,  by  M.  Curtze.     Leipsic,  1876. 
:  Studj  Cosmologici:  Opinioni  e  Ricerche  degli  Anti- 

chi  sulle   Distance   e    sulle     Grandesze    del    Corpi    Celesti. 

Pamphlet.     1865. 
Schwilgue,  Charles :  Description  Abregee  de  I'Horloge  Astron- 

omique  de  la    Cathedrale  de    Strasbourg^  6me  edit.     Stras- 
bourg, 1856. 

Shields,  Charles  W. :  The  Final  Philosophy.     New  York,  1877. 
Small,  Robert:  Account  of  the    Astronomical    Discoveries    of 

Kepler, — including  an  historical  revieiv  of  the  Systems  which 

had  successively  prevailed  before  his  time.     London,  1804. 
Thayer,   William  Roscoe:    Throne-Makers.     New   York,    1899. 

Pp.    252-308 :    Giordano    Bruno :    his    Trial,    Opinions    and 

Death. 

Walsh,  J.  J. :  An  Early  Allusion  to  Accurate  Methods  in  Diag- 
nosis.    Pamphlet.     1909. 
Warren,  William  F. :   The  Earliest  Cosmologies.     New  York, 

1909. 
Vaughan,  Roger  Bede:  Life    and  Labours    of  S.  Thomas    of 

Aquin.  2  vol.     London,  1871. 
Von  Gebler,  Karl:  Galileo  Galilei  and  the  Roman  Curia,  trans. 

by  Mrs.  Sturge.    London,  1879. 
Ziegler,  Alexander:  Regiomontanus,  ein  geistiger  Vorlaufer  des 

Columbus.     Dresden.     1874. 

Ill 

SOURCES 
A:  Pre-Copernican  (chapters  I  and  II). 

Archimedes :  Arenarius,  vol.   II   in   Opera   Omnia  ed.   Heiberg, 

Leipsic,  1781. 
Aquinas,  Thomas:  Summa  Theologica,  vol.  V  in  Opera  Omnia 

.    .cum  commentariis .    .Caietani.    .Rome,  1889. 

134 


Aristotle:  De  Mundo,  vol.  Ill  in  Opera  Omnia.     Paris,  1854. 
Augustine:  De  Civitate  Dei,  vol.  XLI  in  Migne:  Pair.  Lat.  (Cf. 

trans,    in    vol.    II     in     Nicene    and     Post-Nicene     Christian 

Library.     New  York,  1903.) 

:  De  Genesi,  vol.  XXXIV  in  Migne :  Pair.  Lat. 

Bacon,  Roger :  Opus  Tertium,  vol.  I  in  Opera  Qucedam  Hactenus 

Inedita,  ed.  by  Brewer.    London,  1859. 
Capella,  Martianus :     De  Nuptiis  Philologies  et  Mercurii  et  de 

Septem   Artibus    Liberalibus,    libri    novem.     Ed.   by   Kopp. 

Frankfort,  1836. 
Cicero:  Academica,   ed  by  J.   S.   Reid,   London,    1885.        (Cf. 

trans,  by  Yonge  in  Bohn  Classical  Library,  London,  1902.) 
Clement  of  Alexander:  Stromatum,  vol.  Ill  in  Opera  Omnia, 

Leipsic,   1834   (Cf.  trans,  by  Williams,  vol.   II  in   Writings, 

Edinburgh,  1869.) 
Cusanus,    Nicolaus :    De    Docta    Ignorantia,  and  Sermones,  in 

Opera.     Basle,  [1565.] 
Diogenes    Laertius :    De    Clarorum    Philosophormn    Vitis,    ed. 

Cobet.     Paris,   1878.      (Cf.  trans,  by  Yonge  in   Bohn  Clas- 
sical Library,  London,  1909.) 
St.  Dionysius  the  Areopagite:  De  Ccelesti  lerarchia,  vol.  CXXII 

in  Migne:  Pair.  Lat. 
St.  Isidore:  De  Ordine  Creaturarum,  vol.  LXXXIII  in  Migne: 

Patr.  Lat. 
Lactantius :  Divinarum  Institutionum,  vol.  VI  in  Migne :  Patr. 

Lat.  (Cf.  trans,  by  Fletcher,  vol.  XXI  in  Ante-Nicene  Chris- 
tian Library,  Edinburgh,  1871.) 

Lombard,  Peter:  Sententia,  vol.  CXCII  in  Migne:  Patr.  Lat. 
Origen:  De  Principiis,  vol.   XI   in   Migne:  Patr.   Grcec.      (Cf. 

trans,  vol.  X  in  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library,  Edinburgh, 

1869.) 

St.  Philastrius :  De  Haresibus,  vol.  XII  in  Migne :  Patr.  Lat. 
Philo  Judaeus:  De  Mundi  Creatione  (vol.  I),  and  Quis  Rerum 

Divinarum  Hares  (vol.  IV)  in  Opera  Omnia,  Erlangse,  1820. 

(Cf.  trans,  by  Yonge,  London,  1854.) 
Plato:  Timaus,  vol.  IV  in  Opera  ed.  Burnet,  Oxford,   [1905.] 

(Cf.  trans,  by  Jowett,  vol.  Ill  of  Dialogues,  3rd  edit,  revised, 

New  York,  1892). 

135 


Plutarch :    Moralia,    ed.    Bernardakis,    Teubner,    Leipsic,    1893. 

(Cf.  trans,  ed.  by  Goodwin,  Boston,  1898.) 
Ptolemy,   Claudius :    Syntaxis    Mathematica,    vol.   I   in    Opera 

Qua  Super sunt  Omnia,  3  vol.,  Teubner,  Leipsic,   1898.   (Cf. 

trans,  into  French  by  Raima,  2  vol.,  Paris,  1813.) 
Sacro  Bosco:  Libellus  de  Sph&ra,  Venice,    1488;    Wittenberg, 

[1537];  Wittenberg,     1545;  Paris,  1564;  Venice,  1574;  Wit- 
tenberg, 1578. 
Scotus,  Joannus :  Depositiones  super  lerarchias  sancti  Dionysii, 

vol.  CXXII  in  Migne:  Pair.  Lat. 
Seneca:  Naturalium  Qu&stionum  Libros  VIII,  ed.  Gercke,  vol. 

II   in   Opera  qua  supersunt,   Teubner,   Leipsic,    1907.      (Cf. 

trans,  by  Clarke,  London,  1910.) 
Vitruvius :   De   Architectura   Libri    Decem,    Teubner,     Leipsic, 

1867.     (Cf.  trans,  by  Gwilt,  London,  1880.) 

B:  Copernican  and  Post-Copernican. 

Addison,  Joseph:   The  Spectator,  No.  420,  vol.  IV  in   Works. 

New  edit,  with  notes.    6  vol.     London,  1811. 
Agricola,  Georgius  Ludovicus :  De  Systemate  Mundi  Copernico, 

Disputatio   Astronomica.      Pamphlet.      Wittenberg,    1665. 
Allaben,  see  Schoepffer. 
"Anglo-American":    Copernicus   Refuted:   or    the    True    Solar 

System.     Pamphlet.     Baltimore,  1846. 
Bacon,    Francis :   Philosophical    Works.      Reprinted    from   texts 

and   translations   of    Ellis    and    Spedding,    ed.    by    Robertson. 

London,  1905. 
Barocio,   Francisco :   Cosmographia  in   quatuor  libros.     Venice, 

1585. 
Bayle,   Pierre :   Systeme    Abrege    de    Philosophie,    vol.    Ill   in 

Oeuvres  Diver ses.    4  vol.  The  Hague,  1731. 
Bodin,  Jean :  Universe?  Nature  Theatrum  in  quo  rerum  omnium 

effectrices  causa  et  fines    contemplantur    et  continue    series 

quinque  libris  discutiuntur.     Frankfort,  1597. 
:   Universe  Nature?  Theatrum,  trans,   into  French  by 

Frangois  de  Fougerolles.     Lyons,  1597. 
Boscovich,  Rogerio  Josepho   (S.  J.)  :  De  Determinanda  Orbita 

Planetce  ope  catoptrics.     Rome,  1749. 

136 


:   Opera  Pertinentia  ad  Opticam   et  Astronomiam.     5 

vol.    Bassan,  1785. 
Bottrigaro,    Hercole:    Trattato    delta    Descrittone    delta    Sfera 

Celeste  in  Piano  di  Cl.  Tolomeo  Tradotto  in  parlare  Itoliano. 

Bologna,  1572. 
Brahe,  Tychonis :   Opera  Omnia,    she    Astronomicc    Instauratcc 

Progymnasmata.    Frankfort,  1648. 
Browne,  Thomas :  Pseudodoxia  Epidemica  in  Works,  ed.  by  S. 

Wilkins.     3  vol.     London,  1852. 
Bruno,   Giordano :   De    Immenso   et    Innumerabilis,    in     Opera 

Latina  Conscripta,  ed.  by  Fiorentino.     Naples,  1884. 
:  La  Cena  de  le  Ceneri,  in  Opere  Italiane,  ed.  by  Gen- 
tile.    Bari,  1907. 
Burnet,  Thomas :  The  Sacred  Theory  of  the  Earth.     5th  Edit., 

2  vol.     London,   1722. 
Burton,  Richard:  Anatomy  of  Melancholy.     13th  edit,  corrected, 

2  vol.    London,  1827. 
Calvin,  Jean :  Comment  aria  in  Opera  Omni  a  in  Corpus  Rejorm- 

atorum,  vol.  LIX.     Brunswick,  1887. 
:    Traite  ou   Avertissement    contre   VAstrologie    qu'on 

appelle  Judiciaire  et  autre  curiosites  qui  regnent  aujourd'hui 

au  monde,  in  Oeuvres  Francois,  ed.  by  P.  L.  Jacob.     Paris, 

1842. 

Canevari,  Petro, :  /-  De      Observationibus      Astronomicis. 

Giovannelli,  Andrea, :      J  Disserbatio    habit  a   in   Seminario   Ro- 
Giovannelli,   Benedicto:    (^  mano.<    Rome,  1742. 
Cassini,  G.  D. :  De  I'Origine  et  du  Progres  de  I'Astronomie  et 

de  son  usage,  dans  la  Geographie  et  dans  la  Navigation,  in 

Recueil  d' Observations  faites  en  plusieurs  voyages  par  ordre 

de  sa  majeste  pour  perfectionner  I'Astronomie  et  la  Geogra- 

phie,  par  MM.   de   V Academic  Royale  des  Sciences.     Paris, 

1693. 
Cavalieri,    Bonaventura :    Sfera    Astronomica,    Lcttore   primario 

delle  Matematiche  nello  studio  di  Bologna.    .    .cavatc  da  MS. 

dell  'Autore  da  Antonio  Manari.     Rome,  1690. 
Copernicus,    Nicolas :    De    Revolutionibus    Orbium     Ccclestium, 

Libri  sex.     Niirnberg,  1543. 


137 


:  Astronomia  Instaurata,  Libris  sex  comprehensa,  qui 

De  Revolutionibus  Orbium  Ccelestium,  inscribuntur.       Nunc 
demum  post  75  ab  obitu  authoris  annum  integritati  sue?  resti- 
tuta,    notisque    illustrata,    opera  et    studio  Nicolai    Mulerii. 
Amsterdam,  1617. 
:  De  Revolutionibus   Orbium   Ccelestium.     Libri  Sex. 


Accedit  G.  J.  Rhetici  Narratio  Prima,  cum  Copernici  nonnul- 
lis  Scriptis  minoribus  nunc  primum  collectis,  ejusque  vita.  (In 
Latin  and  Polish).  Warsaw,  1854. 

:  De  Revolutionibus  Orbium    Ccelestium,  Libri  Sex., 


with   Rheticus,   George   Joachim:   Narratio   Prima.     Thorn, 

1873. 

:  see  also  vol.  Ill,  Sources,  of  Prowe:  Nicolaus  Cop- 


pernicus. 
Cromer,  Martin :  De  Origine  et  Rebus  Gestibus  Polonorum  Libri 

XXX.     Tertium    ab    authore    diligenter    recogniti.      Basel, 

1568. 
:     Polonia,     in     Res     Publics     sive     Status     Regni 

Polonies,    Lituana,    Prussia,       Livonia,       etc.     Diversorum 

Autorum.     Lugd:  Batavorum,  1642. 
DuBartas,  W.  deSaluste:  The  Divine  Weeks,  trans,  by  Josuah 

Sylvester,    (1501)    ed.   by   T.   W.   Haight.     Waukesha,   Wis. 

1908. 
De  Brisbar,  J. :  Calendrier  Historique  .  .  .  avee  un  Trait  e  His- 

torique  de  la  Sphere.     2me  edit.     Leyden,  1697. 
De  Maupertius :  Elements  de  Geographic,  in  Oitvrages  Divers. 

Amsterdam,  1744. 
De  Premontval,  Mme. :  Le  Mechaniste  Philosophe,  Memoir  .    . 

de  la  Vie  et  des  Ouvrages  du  Sr.  Jean  Piegeon,  mathema- 

ticien,  Membre  de  la  Societe  des  arts,  Auteur  des  premieres 

Spheres   mouvantes    qui   ayent    ete   faites   en    France,    selon 

I'hypothese  de  Copernic.     The  Hague,  1750. 

DP  T  W  •  (Al9°l:   The   "Ghoul"   or  "Demon"  Star,   a 

An  u      £  '\  Supplement   to   "The  Earth  Stands  Fast." 

I  Pamphlet.     New  York,  1900. 

Descartes,  Rene:  Les  Principes  de  la  Philosophic,  vol.  Ill  in 
Oeuvres  ed.  by  Cousin.    II  vol.    Paris,  1824. 


138 


Di  Gallo,  Marco  Antonio  Giovanni  Gianesimi :   Opinione  sopra 

il  movimento  della  Terra  e  degli  Astri.     Pamphlet.    Bassano, 

1771. 
Dobell,  John    (ed.)  :  Hymns.     No  title-page.       Preface  dated 

England,  1806. 
Favaro,  Antonio:   Galileo  e  I'Inquisizione,  Documenti  de  Pro- 

cesso   Galileiano.    .    .per  la  prima  volta  integralmente  pub- 

blicati.    Florence,  1907. 
Fenelon,  F.  de  S.  de  la  Mothe:   Traite  de  I' existence    et  des 

attributs  de  Dieu,  in  vol.  I,  Oeuvres.    3  vol.    Paris,  1835. 
Ferramosca,   Aegidius    Leognanus :   Positiones   suas  Physioas- 

tronomicas    De  Sphcera    Ccelesti  publice    Demonstrandas   et 

Propugnandis  in   Collegia   Neapolitano   Soc.   Jesu.      Naples, 

1682. 

[De     Cometa    Anni    1618,    Dissertationes. 

Ejusdem  Thom<e  Fieni  Epistolica  qucestio, 
Fienus,  Thomas :  '     T7  .     „   ,  t  * 

T-  j       T  -U  An   Verum  sit  Cesium  moven,  et  Terram 

Fromundus,  Liberti :        .  «      T      j         n:rc       r>       j       vu 

qmescere?      London,    1655.      Bound    with 

Fromundus :  Meteorologicorum. 
Fienus,  Thomas :  Epistolica  quastio.      See  above. 
Fontana,    Cajetano:    Institutio    Physico-Astronomica.      Mutinae. 
1695. 

Forbes,  Duncan :  A  Letter  to  a  Bishop  concerning  some  impor- 
tant Discoveries  in  Philosophy  and  Theology,  in  Works.  Dub- 
lin, 1755. 

Foscarini,  Paolo  Antonio:  An  Epistle  Concerning  the  Pythago- 
rian  and  Copernican  Opinion  of  the  Mobility  of  the  Earth 
and  Stability  of  the  Sun  .  .  .  in  which  the  Authorities  of 
Sucred  Scriptures  .  .  .  are  reconciled.  Written  to  the  Most 
Reverend  Father  Sebastiano  Fontoni,  General  of  the  Order  of 
Carmelites,  Jan.,  1615,  Naples,  in  Salusbury :  Math.  Coll.,  q.  v. 

Fromondus,  Liberti :  Ant-Aristarchus  sive  Orbis-Terra  Immo- 
bilis:  Liber  Unicus  in  quo  decretum  S.  Congregationis  S.  R. 
E.  Cardinal,  an  1616  adversus  Pythagorico-Copernicanos  edi- 
tum  defenditur.  Antwerp,  1631. 

:  Meteorologicorum  Libri  Sex.  Cui  accessit  in  hac 

ultima  Editione  Thoma  Fieni  et  Lib.  Fromondi  Dissertationes 
de  Cometa  Anni  1618,  et  Clarorum  Viroruwi  Judicia  De  Phi- 
via  Purpurea  Bruxelliensis.  London,  1656. 

139 


:     Vesta,    sive    Ant-Aristarchi    vindcx    adversus    lac. 

Lansbergium   .    .    .  in  quo  Decretum   .    .    .  1616  et  alterum 

anno    adversus    Copernicanos    terra    motor es    editum,    iterum 

defenditur.     Antwerp,  1634. 

See  also  Fienus. 
Gadbury,   John   and   Timothy :    George   Hartgill's  Astronomical 

Tables.     London,  1656. 
Galilei,  Galileo :  Opere,  Edizione  Nazionale,  ed.  by  Favaro.     20 

vol.  Florence,  1890-1909. 
:  Dialog o  sopra  i  due  Massimi  sistemi  del  Mondo,  Tol- 

emaico,  e  Copernicano.     Florence,  1632. 

Trans,  in  Salusbury :  Muth.  Coll.,  q.  v. 
:  Lettera  a  Madama  Cristina  di  Lorena,  Granduchessa 


di   Toscana,   in   vol.   V,    Opere;   trans,    in    Salusbury:    Math. 
Coll.,  q.  y. 
:  Sidereus  Nuncius   .    .   atque  Medicea  Sidera,  in  vol. 


Ill,  Opere. 

Accusation,  Condemnation  and  Abjuration  of  Galileo  Galilei  be- 
fore the  Holy  Inquisition  at  Rome,   1633.     Pamphlet.     Lon- 
don, 1819. 
See  also  Favaro. 

Gassendi,  Petro :  Institutio  Astronomica  juxta  Hypothesis 
quam  Veterum  quam  Copernici  ac  Typhonis.  3rd  edit.  Hagae- 
Comitum,  1656. 

:  Institutio  Astronomica  .   .   .  5th  edit.    London,  1675. 

— :  Institutio  Astronomica  juxta  Hypothesis  Tarn  Ve- 
terum quam  Recentiorum  Cui  accesserunt  Galileo  Galilei; 
Nuncius  Sidereus,  et  Johannis  Kepleri:  Dioptric c.  3rd  edit, 
corrected.  London,  1683. 

:   Vita    Tychonis    Brahei,    Equitis    D^ani,    Astronoiuuii 


Coryphcei.,  2nd  edit,  corrected.     Hagae-Comitum,  1655. 

George,  Earl  of  Macclesfield :  Speech  in  the  House  of  Peers, 
Mar.  18,  1750.  Pamphlet.  London,  1751. 

Gilbert,  William:  De  Magnete,  Magnetis  qui  corporibus,  et  de 
magno  magnet  e  tellure  Physilogia  nova.  London,  1600,  re- 
printed Berlin  1892.  Trans,  by  P.  F.  Mottelay,  New  York, 
1893. 


140 


Herbert,  George:  Man,  in  English  Works  ed.  by  G.  H.  Palmer, 
Boston,  1905. 

Home,  George:  Commentary  on  Book  of  Psalms.  2  vol.  Ox- 
ford, 1784. 

:  A  Fair,  Candid  and  Impartial  State  of  the  Case  be- 
tween Sir  Isaac  Newton  and  Mr.  Hutchinson.  Pamphlet. 
Oxford,  1753. 

Hutchinson,  John :  Moses's  Principia.     London,   1724. 

Huygens,  Christian :  The  Celestial  Worlds  discovered.  Trans, 
from  the  Latin.  London,  1698. 

:  Nouveau   Traite  de  la  Pluralite  des  Mondes    .    .    . 

traduit  du  Latin  en  Frangois  par  M.  D.     Amsterdam,  1718. 

Index  Librorum  Prohibitorum     .     .    usque  1681,   (appendix  to 
June,  1704).    Rome,  1704. 
usque  1711.     Rome,  1711. 

-  usque  1744.     Rome,  1744. 

usque  1752.     Rome,  1752. 

Benedicti  XIV.     Rome,  1758. 

-  Pii  Sexti.     Rome,  1786. 

-  Pii  Septimi.     Rome,  1819. 

editum  1835.     Mechlin,  1838. 

Gregorii  XVI.     Rome,  1841. 

Leonis  XIII  recognitus  Pii  X.    3rd  edit.    Rome,  1911. 

Justus-Lipsius :  Physiologies  Stoicorum,  vol.  IV,  in  Opera  Om- 

nia,  4  vols.     Vesaliae,  1674. 

Keble,  John:  Christian  Year.    Ed.  by  Lock.     London,  1895. 

Keill,  John :  Introductio  ad  Veram  Astronowiam,  seu  Lectiones 
Astronomica:  habitce  in  Schola  Astronomica  Academic?  Oxon- 
iensis.  Oxford,  1718. 

Kepler,  Joannis :  Opera  Omnia,  edidit  Frisch.  8  vol.  Frank- 
fort a.  M.  1858-1871. 

:  Abstract  of  the  "Introduction  Upon  Mars,''  trans,  in 

Salusbury :  Math.  Coll.,  q.  v. 

:  Tabula  Rudolphina  ...  a  Phcenice  illo  Astronomo- 


rum  Tychone  .  .  primum  concepta  .  .  1564  .  .  observatiori- 
bus  siderum  .  .  post  annum  prcecipue  1572  .  .  .  Traducta  in 
Germaniam  .  .  1598.  Tabula-s  ipsas  .  .  jussu  et  stipendiis  .  . 
Imp.  Rudolphi.  Ulm,  1627. 

141 


Kircher,  Athanasius  (S.  J.)  :  Iter  Exstaticum  C celeste,  enlarged 
by  Gaspare  Schotto,  S.J.  Herbipoli,  1671. 

Kromer,  see  Cromer. 

La  Galla,  Julius  Caesar:  De  Phoenomenis  in  Orbe  Luna  Novi 
Telescopii  usu  a  Gullileo  Gallileo.  Physica  Disputatio.  Ven- 
ice, 1612. 

Lambert:  Systeme  du  Monde.     2me  edit.     Berlin,  1784. 

Lange,  J.  R.  L. :  The  Copernican  System:  The  Greatest  Absurd- 
ity in  the  History  of  Human  Thought.  No  place,  1901. 

Leadbetter,  Charles :  Astronomy  of  the  Satellites  of  the  Earth, 
Jupiter  and  Saturn,  grounded  upon  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  The- 
ory of  the  Earth's  Satellites.  London,  1729. 

Longomontanus,  Christianus :  Astronomica  Danica.  Amster- 
dam, 1640. 

Luther,  Martin:  Tischreden  oder  Colloquia,  ed.  by  Forstemann. 
4  vol.  Leipsic,  1846. 

Mather,  Cotton:  The  Christian  Philosopher,  a  Collection  of  the 
Best  Discoveries  in  Nature  with  Religious  Improvements. 
London,  1721. 

Melancthon,  Philip :  Initia  Doctrines  Physicce,  2nd  edit.  Wit- 
tenberg, 1585. 

Milton,  John:  Areopagitica,  ed.  by  Hales.     Oxford,  1904. 

:  Paradise  Lost,  in  Complete  Poetical  Works,  ed.  by 

Beeching.  London,  1911. 

Montaigne,  Michel  E.  de:  Apologie  of  Raymond  Sebonde,  vol. 
II  in  Essayes,  trans,  by  Florio.  3  vol.  London,  1908. 

Moxon,  Joseph :  A  Tutor  to  Astronomic  and  Geographic^  or  an 
Easie  and  Speedy  Way  to  know  the  use  of  both  the  Globes, 
Celestial  and  Terrestrial.  2nd  edit.  London,  1670. 

Mulerius,  Nicolaus :  Tabulce  Frisccc  Lunce-Solares  quadruplices 
e  fontibus  Cl.  Ptolemcei,  Regis  Alfonsi,  Nic.  Copernici  et  Ty- 
chonis  Brahe.  Amsterdam,  1611. 

Piccioli,  Gregorio:  La  Scienza  del  Cieli  e  dei  Corpi  Celesti,  e 
loro  meramgliosa  Posizione,  Moto,  e  Grande zza:  Epilogata 
colle  sue  Figure  quattro  piu  famosi  Sistemi  dell'Universo  Toi- 
emaico,  Copernicano,  Ticonico,  e  Nomssimo.  Colla  patentc 
Dimostrazione  della  quiet  a  di  nostra  Terra,  e  che  poco  piu,  o 


142 


meno  ci  apparisce  ella  oggidi  nella  sita  superfizie  tal  quale  era 

avanti  I' Universal  Diluvio.     Verona,  1741. 
Pike,  Samuel :  Philosophica  Sacra :  or  the  Principles  of  Natural 

Philosophy  extracted  from  Divine  Revelation.     London,  1753. 
Pluche :  Histoire  du  del  considere  selon  les  idees  des  Poetes,  des 

Philosopher  et  de  Mo'ise.    2  vol.     Paris,  1739. 
Pope,  Alexander:  Letter  in  vol.  VI,  Works,  new  edit,  by  Croker 

and  Elwin.    London,  1871. 
Record,  Robert:  The  Castle  of  Knowledge.     3rd  edit.     London, 

1596. 
Reisch,  Gregorius :  Margarita  Filosofica  .    .    .  trans,  into  Italian 

by  Gallucci.     Venice,  1599. 
Rheticus,  Georgius  Joachim:  De  Libris  Revolutionum  ad  Joan- 

nem  Schonerum  Narratio   Prima,   1539,   in    Copernicus:   De 

Revolutionibus,  Thorn,  1873. 
Riccioli,  Giovanni  Baptista   (S.  J.)  :  Aimagestum  Novum,  As- 

tronomiam    veterem    novamqite    completens    Observationibus 

Aliorum  et  Propriis,  Novisque  Theorematibus,  Problematibus 

ac  Tabulis  promotam.    2  vol.  Bologna,  1651. 
:  Apologia  pro  Argumento  Physicomathematico  contra 

Systema  Copernicanum  adiecto  contra  illud  Novo  Argumento 

ex  Reflexo  motu  Gravium  Decidentium.    Venice,  1669. 
Spooner,  W.  W. :  Great  Copernican  Myth;  a  Review  of  Algol  by 

de  Peyster  and  Allaben.     Pamphlet.    Tivoli,  N.  Y.,  1901. 
Salusbury,  Thomas :  Mathematical  Collections  and  Translations, 

first  tome.     London,  1661. 
Schoepffer,  C. :   The  Earth  Stands  Fast,  trans,  for  and  ed.  by 

J.  W.  de  Peyster  with  notes  and  Supplement  by  Frank  Alla- 
ben.    Pamphlet.     New  York,  1900. 
Schotto,  Caspar  (S.  J.)  :  Organmn  Mathematiciim.     Opus  Pos- 

thumum,     Herbipoli,  1668. 

Simpson,  Thomas :  Essays  on  Several  Curious  and  Useful  Sub- 
jects in  Speculative  and  Mi.v'd  Mathematicks.     London,  1740. 
Sindico,  Pierre :  Refutation  du  Systcme  de  Copernic  expose  en 

dix-sept  lettres  qui  ete  adressees  a  feu  M.  Le  Verrier.  Paris, 

1878. 
Spagnio,  Andrea:  De  Motu.     Rome,  1774. 


Tischner,  August :  Le  Systeme  Solaire  se  Mouvant.  Pamphlet. 
Leipsic,  1894. 

Toland,  John :  Miscellaneous  Works.     2  vol.     London,  1747. 

Vitali,  Hieronymo:  Lexicon  Mathematicum.     Rome,  1690. 

Voight,  Johann-Henrich :  Der  Kunstgunstigen  Einfult  Mathe- 
matischer  Raritdten  Erstes  Hundert:  Allen  Kunstgunstigen 
sum  lustigen  und  nutzbaren  Gebrauch  mil  Fleiss  und  Miihe 
susammen  geordnet  und  furgetragen.  Hamburg,  1668. 

Wesley,  John :  Sermon,  vol.  VII  in  Works.  5th  edit.  14  vol. 
London,  1860. 

:  Survey  of  the  Wisdom  of  God  in  the  Creation,  or  a 

Compendium  of  Natural  Philosophy.     3  vol.  in  2.     2nd  edit. 
Bristol,  1770. 

Whiston,  William :  A  New  Theory  of  the  Earth.  4th  edit.  Lon- 
don, 1725. 

Wilkins,  G. :  The  First  Book:  The  Discovery  of  a  Nezv  World. 
3rd  edit.  London,  1640. 

:    The    Second    Book:    Discourse    concerning    a    New 

Planet,  that  'tis  probable  our  Earth  is  one  of  the  planets.   Lon- 
don, 1640.     (Bound  with  First  Book.) 

"W.  R." :  The  New  Astronomer,  or  Astronomy  made  easy  by 
such  instruments  that  readily  sheiv  by  Observation  the  Stars 
.  .  .  London,  1735. 


144 


INDEX 


Addison,  J.,  91-92. 

Agricola,  G.  L.,  77. 

Albategnius,  15. 

Allaben,  F.,  103. 

Alphonse  X  of  Castile,   15,   119. 

Ambrose,  16. 

Arabian    astronomers,    15,    16,    20, 

119. 

Archimedes,  11. 
Aristarchus  ot   Samos,  ll-12n.,  13, 

27n.,  43,  46. 
Aristotle,    10,    18,   72,   81,   116,   117, 

120,  122,  124. 
Augustine,  16,  17,  18. 

Bacon,  Francis,  50,  72-73. 

Bacon,   Roger,  20. 

Bayle,  Pierre,  95-96. 

Bellarmin,   Cardinal,   56,   58-59,   66. 

Benedict  XIV,  69. 

Bessel,  38,  106. 

Bodin,    Jean,    45-47,    104-105,    115- 

123. 

Boscovich,  69,  97. 
Bossuet,  97. 
Bradley,  38,  98. 
Browne,  Thomas,  87-88. 
Bruno,    32,    39,    47-52,    82,    87,    88, 

105,   106. 
Burton,  Richard,  88. 

Calvin,  41,  69,  99. 
Cartesian-Copernicans,     85-86,      91, 

95,  98,   106. 
Cassini,  G.  D.,  96-97. 
Castelli,   56,   67. 
Church   Fathers,   17-18,   117. 
Cicero,  11,  12,  27,  111. 
Cleanthes,    13. 


Clement  of  Alexandria,   16. 
Clement  VIII,  124n. 
Congregations    of    the    Index,    52, 
57-60,  65-71,  74,   79,  83,   101, 
106,  113. 

Copernicus,    12,  20,  21,   33,  35,  63, 
81,  82-83,  88,  90,  99,  100,  102, 
104,  109,  118,  124. 
name,  23n. 
life,  23-29. 
theory,   5,   27-28,   64,   66,   68,   97- 

101,  104,   105-106. 
opponents,   32,   35,   39-40,  41,  45- 
48,    58-60,   69,    71-84,   94,   96, 
101-104. 

supporters,  30,  31,  35-38,  39,  42- 
43,  44-45,  48,  49-52,  53-55, 
56,  60,  71-72,  74-77,  89-94, 
95-96,  97-99. 

Dante,   18. 

Delambre,  80,  81. 

de   Maupertius,  96. 

de  Peyster,  J.  W.,  103. 

de  Premontval,  Mme.,  95. 

DC   Revolutionibus,  26,  27,   42,   60, 

70,   105-106,  109-115. 
Descartes,  82,  85,  97. 
Didacus   a    Stunica,  44,  60,   70,   82, 

100. 

Digges,  Thomas,  87n. 
Diogenes  Laertius,  10. 
Dominicus  Maria  di  Novara,  24, 

25. 
DuBartas,  43. 

Fenelon,  97. 

Feyens,  Thomas,  60,  74,  124-129. 

Flammarion,   41. 


Forbes,    Duncan,    94. 
Foscarini,  60,  70,  71-72, 82, 100. 
Foucault,  38,  102. 
Froidmont,   see  Fromundus. 
Fromundus,  60,  69,  74-75,  82. 

Galileo,  16,  37,  52-69,  70,  73,  74-75, 
77,  79,  82,  83,  85,  86,  99,  100, 
105,  106,  125. 

Gassendi,  82,  91,  97. 

Gilbert,  Wm.,  50,  82,  87. 

Greek  philosophers,  10-12,  27,  46, 
119. 

Herbert,  George,  88-89. 
Hipparchos,  13,  34. 
Hicetas,   11,  111. 
Home,  George,  94. 
Hutchinson,  John,  94. 
Huygens,  Christian,  88,  95. 

Index,  52,  60,  69-70,  95,  97,  99,  100. 
Inquisition,  51,  52,  56,  57-60,  64-67, 

69,  84,  99. 
Isidore  of  Seville,  18. 

Jasper,  Bro.,  99. 

Jesuits,  55,  56,  76,  77,  79,  85,  97- 

98,  100. 

Johnson,  S.,  87. 
Justus-Lipsius,  74,  82. 

Keble,  J.,  93. 

Keill,  J.,  90-91. 

Kepler,  29,  34,  35-37,  47,  48,  53,  55, 

70,  82,  100,  105,  106. 
Knap,  102. 

Kromer,  M.,  47n. 

Lactantius,  16,  115. 

Lalande,  99. 

Lange,  J.  R.,  103. 

Lansberg,  74-75,  82. 

Leo  X,  115. 

Liege,  Univ.  of,  76,  97-98. 


Longomontanus,  79. 

Louvain,    Univ.    of,    60,    74,    75-77, 

86,  98. 

Luther,  31,  39,  69,  99. 
Lutherans,  101,  103,  105. 

Mzestlin,  36,  37,  48,  81. 
Martianus  Capella,  74. 
Mather,  Cotton,  92. 
Melancthon,  31,  39-41,  99. 
Milton,  43,  67,  89. 
Mivart,  101. 
Montaigne,  45. 

Narratio  Prima,  31,  106. 
Newton,  37,  67,  86,  87,  90. 
Nicolas  Cusanus,  22,  23. 

Origen,  16. 
Osiander,  29,  32. 
Owen,  J.,  89n.,  99. 

Paul  III,  109. 

Paul  V,  56-60,  63,  69,  83. 

Peter  Lombard,   18. 

Peter  the  Great,  96. 

Philastrius,  17. 

Philo  Judaeus,  16. 

Philolaus,  11,  112. 

Piegeon,  J.,  96. 

Pike,  S.,  94. 

Pius  VII,  70. 

Plato,  10,  122. 

Plutarch,  10,   13,  27,  111. 

Pope,  Alexander,  91,  93. 

Pseudo-Dionysius,    18. 

Ptolemy,    9n.,    13,    14,    81,    107-109, 

117,  119,  124. 
theory,  5,  16,   19,  27,  35,  53,  54, 

66,  80,  83,  85,  96-100. 
Piirbach,  21. 
Pythagoras,  10,  11,  102. 
Pythagoreans,   109,  112. 

Recorde,  R.,  42-43. 


146 


Regiomontanus,  20,  21,  81,  117,  119. 
Reinhold,  Erasmus,  31. 
Rheticus,  29-31,  39,  81,  106. 
Riccioli,  5,  22,  79-84,   100,  113. 
Roberts,  101. 
Roemer,  38. 

Sacrobosco,  16,  41,  77. 
Salamanca,  Univ.  of,  16,  44. 
Schoepffer,  C,  102. 
Schwilgue,  42. 
Settele,  99,  106. 
Shakespeare,  50. 
Sindico,    103. 
Stephen,  Leslie,  94. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  18. 
Turrettin,  99. 
Turrinus,  J.,  83. 


Tycho  Brahe,  14,  32-37,  47,  82,  105. 
theory,  34,  48,  74,  77,  79,  80,  85, 
96,  98,  102,  105. 

Urban  VIII,  63-69. 

Van  Welden,  M.,  76-77. 

Vitruvius,   14. 

Voight,  J.  H.,  77-78. 

von  Schonberg,  N.,  30,  39,  110. 

Wallis,  84n. 
Wesley,  J.,  93,  99. 
Whewell,   16,  89. 
Widmanstadt,    30,    39. 
Wilkins,  Bp.,  89-90,  95. 
Wren,  Dean,  87-88. 

Yale,  Univ.  of,  91. 
Zytphen,    102. 


VITA 

Dorothy  Stimson  was  born  October  10,  1890,  in  St.  Louis, 
Mo.  After  nine  years  in  Miss  Spence's  School  in  New  York 
City  she  entered  Vassar  College.  She  received  there  the  degree 
of  A.B.  with  honors  in  1912,  and  was  elected  to  membership  in 
the  Phi  Beta  Kappa  Society.  In  June,  1913,  she  received  the 
degree  of  A.M.  from  Columbia  University.  She  was  a  teacher 
of  history  in  the  Tudor  Hall  School  for  girls  in  Indianapolis, 
Ind.,  in  1913-1915;  then  as  holder  of  a  Curtis  Scholarship  for 
the  year  1915-1916,  she  continued  her  graduate  study  at  Colum- 
bia University  during  that  winter  and  the  following  fall,  work- 
ing under  the  direction  of  Professor  James  Harvey  Robinson. 
In  February,  1917,  she  became  instructor  in  history  at  Vassar 
College. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immgdittfe recall. 


RETU 


RgCElV 

This  I 

Ren"  QCT19'67-3PI 


I 

MAV" 


INTER-LIBRAS 


LOAN 


RE      FEB    11968 


-IWtf 


HO^Bl^H 


RtC'DLD 


R£o 


MAY  27 


LD  21A-60m-2,'67 
(H241slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


JAN  2  4  '67  -3  PM 


I 


LU 


LD  21A-40m-4,'63 
(D6471slO)476B 


YC  22352 


